request_human_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without revealing what happens after the request is made, whether it blocks, how approval is communicated, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool that triggers a human-in-the-loop process.

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 is concise and directly to the point. It contains no extraneous information and is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the caller can expect, such as the approval request ID or status. It also lacks context about the approval workflow, expiry behavior, or how to check the outcome. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in using the tool effectively.

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 100%, with every parameter having a description. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3. It does not clarify the semantics of 'expires_minutes' or 'currency' beyond their schema descriptions.

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 function: to request human approval specifically for a high-value purchase. It uses a specific verb ('request') and identifies the resource ('human approval') along with the context ('high-value purchase'), making the purpose distinct from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like create_approval_request.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_approval_request or commerce_preflight. There is no mention of prerequisites, thresholds for 'high-value', or circumstances that would make this tool appropriate or inappropriate.

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