Add Approval Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the name: it does not disclose that required signer private/public keys are needed, what happens on duplicate signatures (non-idempotent), or any authorization requirement. For a signing operation handling secrets, this is thin.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a mutation involving cryptographic keys, so brevity buys little.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still omits prerequisites (an existing approval request), the purpose of the signer key pair, and error/duplicate behavior. With 5 undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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% across five parameters, including the required signer_private_key, signer_public_key, and request_id plus an office_id and a key_class with default 'board'. The description mentions none of these and provides no compensating detail, leaving the agent to guess at key format, key_class semantics, and when office_id applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding a signature to an approval request, which is clearly distinguishable from create_approval_request. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from other signing siblings such as sign_charter, sign_amendment, or aps_sign_attribution_consent, so the agent must infer scope from the noun 'approval request' alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that an approval request must already exist, and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no help deciding between this tool and create_approval_request or the other sign_* tools.

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