gateway_approve

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that the tool approves without executing, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or whether it modifies state. This is insufficient for an approval 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 very short, but the deprecation notice is placed first, which may confuse or mislead an agent about the tool's current relevance. A more structured approach would place the deprecation at the end and front-load the core 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 the tool has 5 parameters (3 required, including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the basic approval action, how to use the params object, or what happens after approval.

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 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. Parameters like agentId, tool, params, scopeRequired, and context are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meanings and correct usage.

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 that the tool approves a tool call without executing it, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gateway_process_tool_call. The verb 'approve' and object 'tool call' are specific, and the two-phase execution context is mentioned.

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 includes a deprecation notice and suggests using the REST API as an alternative, providing guidance not to use this tool. However, it does not explain when to use this tool if needed, nor does it compare with other approval-related siblings like request_human_approval.

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