approve_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a signed receipt JCS and sha256, implying the action is recorded and irrefutable. However, it does not specify whether the approval is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. Some behavioral gaps remain.

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 directly states the action and the return value. There is no extraneous information; every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It mentions the key outputs (signed receipt JCS and sha256), which complements the output schema. However, it could briefly note that the approval must be pending, which is implied but not explicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema's description for 'approval_id' (which references 'approval.approval_id'). The description does not provide format constraints or additional semantics, so no uplift.

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 tool approves a pending human approval request and returns a signed receipt JCS plus sha256. The verb 'approve' is specific and the resource is a human approval request, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'deny_action' which performs the opposite action.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to approve a pending request. It implicitly distinguishes from 'deny_action', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like first retrieving the request via 'get_approval_request'. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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