add_approval_signature

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires authentication, or has side effects. The minimal description does not add behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

While the description is a single sentence, it is too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. The lack of detail is not conciseness but under-specification, as every sentence does not earn its place because it adds minimal value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the signing process, requirements, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the tool description does not explain any of them. Critical parameters like 'signer_private_key' and 'signer_public_key' lack context on their purpose or relationship, leaving the agent with only the parameter names as hints.

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 'Add a signature to an approval request' clearly states the verb and resource, and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_approval_request'. However, it lacks any additional scope or context that would help differentiate from potential other signature tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'request_human_approval' or 'create_approval_request'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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