approve_proposal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the dual .md + SQLite write, code assignment, in-place splicing, and declares 'Access level: write.' It stops short of stating reversibility/undo or error behavior if the proposal is not pending, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and the per-type consequences, then access level and return shape. Every sentence is informative; slightly dense but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, yet the description usefully names the returned fields (code, scope_id, file location). Type-dependent behavior is fully covered. Minor gaps remain around failure/edge cases (e.g., approving an already-approved proposal), but it is solid for a single-param mutation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents proposal_id. The description adds no naming/format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('Approve a pending proposal') with a precise breakdown of what happens by type (rule/lesson get code assignment + block append + row insert; update splices in place). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reject_proposal, edit_proposal, and create_pending_proposal.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied — you approve a pending proposal, and type determines the write path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., when to reject vs edit vs approve, or prerequisites such as the proposal must be pending). Adequate but with a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.