create_approval_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create a request') and mentions 'multi-party,' but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether the request persists, how approvals are collected, or what the response contains. This is minimal for a state-changing tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. The use of 'etc.' is slightly vague but does not add unnecessary bulk; the structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

This is a creation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a high-level purpose. It does not explain expected return values, required fields beyond examples, failure modes, or the multi-party approval workflow. The description is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only 'subject' has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds some context by mapping subject_type examples ('charter amendments, office transfers') but fails to explain policy_id, requested_by, or timeout_seconds semantics. The agent is left guessing what these fields mean and how they relate to the request.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('multi-party approval request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_approval_signature or request_human_approval. It also provides concrete examples ('charter amendments, office transfers, etc.') that reinforce what the tool is for.

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?

The description gives examples of subject types but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_approval_signature or request_human_approval. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose between approval-related tools.

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