approve_command

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 key behavioral traits: the tool is for approving/denying commands, it's session-specific ('for this session only'), and it operates under specific conditions. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or side effects, which are important for a mutation 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, and session-limited behavior, but lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be helpful for full transparency.

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 documents both parameters (command and approve). The description adds context by explaining that 'command' is 'the exact command to approve' and implies 'approve' controls approval/denial, but this doesn't significantly enhance the schema's information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('approve a command') and the resource ('command that requires permission'), distinguishing it from siblings like execute_command or set_permission_mode. It explicitly mentions the condition 'when permission_mode is 'ask' and a command is not in the allow list,' which adds precision.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when permission_mode is 'ask' and a command is not in the allow list.' It implies alternatives by referencing the allow list and permission_mode, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools like set_permission_mode. This provides clear contextual guidance.

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