Register yourself as approver

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is sent unless confirm:true, and there is no server-side dry run, so the preview is the only safety net. It stops short of describing what registration does to existing approver state or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the write-gate caveat. Nothing redundant and the most decision-relevant fact (confirm required) is stated up front.

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?

For a single-endpoint mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the endpoint, and the confirm/preview contract, which is what an agent needs to invoke it safely. Minor gaps remain around auth/permission requirements and the meaning of the slackUserId body field.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% and confirm/idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema, so the description adds little. The nested body.slackUserId is only constrained by a regex pattern and the description never explains whose Slack ID it should be or what happens when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register yourself as approver') and pins the exact endpoint (POST /v1/approvers/me). This clearly separates it from the sibling read/delete operations approvers_list and approvers_delete.

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 only implied by the 'register yourself' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when an agent should call this versus approvers_list or an invite flow, nor any prerequisite (auth/role/workspace) guidance. The confirm gating is explained, but that is execution mechanics rather than when-to-use guidance.

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