create_approval_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the creation of a request without explaining side effects (e.g., notifications, signature requirements, authorization needs) or the lifecycle of the approval process. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. While it is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary content, it could be expanded slightly to include key usage notes without becoming verbose.

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?

The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multi-party approval, many siblings). It lacks information about return values, required permissions, the approval process, and how it fits among similar tools. The absence of an output schema and behavioral details leaves the agent underinformed.

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). The tool description lists example subject_types (charter amendments, office transfers) which map to the enum, adding some context. However, no other parameters (e.g., policy_id, requested_by, timeout_seconds) are explained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 action (create) and resource (multi-party approval request) with examples like charter amendments and office transfers. While it distinguishes this from other create tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar approval-related siblings like request_human_approval, but the examples provide enough context.

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 implies usage scenarios through examples but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions. The guidance is minimal.

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