gateway_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool approves without executing, which is a meaningful distinction from execution tools. However, it doesn't explain what 'approving' entails (e.g., side effects, reversibility, permission requirements) or what happens after approval. The two-phase execution hint is useful but underdeveloped.

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 sentence that conveys two key pieces of information: deprecation and the two-phase behavior. It is concise and front-loaded with the deprecation notice, which is the most actionable information. However, it's under-specified for a tool with five parameters, so it's efficient but not sufficiently detailed.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations) and the availability of sibling tools like gateway_process_tool_call and create_approval_request, the description is notably incomplete. The deprecation notice effectively redirects users away, which mitigates the need for full docs, but for a tool that is still present, it leaves too many details unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. Parameters like agentId, tool, scopeRequired, params, and context are left entirely to their names. The description doesn't clarify the relationship between 'approve' and these parameters (e.g., what 'scopeRequired' means or how 'params' relates to the tool call). This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'approve a tool call without executing it.' This specifies the verb (approve) and the resource (tool call). The mention of 'two-phase execution' hints at a distinct workflow that separates it from execution-only tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the deprecation notice, so it loses a point.

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 deprecation notice explicitly says 'use gateway.aeoess.com REST API' instead, providing a strong 'when not to use' directive. However, it provides no guidance on when one might still use this tool, nor does it compare to sibling tools like gateway_process_tool_call or create_approval_request. The guidance is essentially 'don't use this,' which is clear but incomplete for understanding the tool's intended role.

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