Create Approval Request

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that this is 'multi-party' (requires several approvers), but says nothing about workflow state, what gets created, or how timeout_seconds affects the request.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'etc.' adds noise rather than information and the brevity edges into under-specification for a 5-parameter mutation.

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?

With no output schema, a mutation tool, low parameter coverage and no explanation of prerequisites or result (approval request identity/status), the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke this correctly alongside peers like request_human_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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just 'subject'), so policy_id, requested_by, subject_type and timeout_seconds are undocumented. The description's example use cases loosely map to the subject_type enum but explain none of the four parameters an agent must supply.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (multi-party approval request) and gives concrete example use cases (charter amendments, office transfers). However it never distinguishes itself from siblings like request_human_approval or add_approval_signature, and the trailing 'etc.' dilutes the scope.

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 only through subject examples; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. must a policy exist first, who can request), and no comparison to the closely related request_human_approval sibling.

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