Approve the durable MCP server approval snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description adds valuable behavior: the env-var gate that must be set before process startup, that approval never starts the target server, and the null-on-first-approval rule. It stops short of spelling out what mutation is destructive (the prior pin being superseded).

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?

Front-loaded with the decision rules (when/when-not) before the mechanics, and every sentence carries load. It is dense with prerequisites, but nothing is idle filler.

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 an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers prerequisites, the exact-hash requirement, the alternative sibling, and the fact that the target server is not launched — everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already defines every parameter including the hash provenance and previous_pin_revision nullability. The description restates the hash-linkage and null rule in prose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('approve a local server approval') and frames it against the operator-review workflow. It distinguishes itself from status_mcp_server and vet_mcp_server by name, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('approve ... after operator review'), explicit when-NOT-to-use ('ordinary scanning; use vet_mcp_server'), and names status_mcp_server as the source of the required hashes. Prerequisites like WARDEN_ALLOW_PIN_CHANGES=1 are stated outright.

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