Approve or reject an execution request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the consequences of each decision: approval returns the task to assigned, rejection terminates it. It also adds an important caveat that runtime policy remains authoritative, which goes beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently explains both outcome branches and the governance caveat.

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?

The high-level lifecycle behavior is clear, but for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low parameter coverage, more context is needed about expected_version, the role of reason, and any validation or policy constraints. It is adequate as a summary but not fully complete for safe 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 only 17%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning of expected_version, reason, approval_id, or how decision maps precisely to the field values. The core approve/reject idea is inferable, but key parameter semantics are left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('a pending runtime approval'), and then clarifies the two possible outcomes. This distinguishes task_decide from sibling tools like task_cancel or assign_task by making its lifecycle effects explicit.

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 that this should be used for pending runtime approvals and notes that runtime policy remains authoritative, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use task_decide versus alternatives, nor does it describe preconditions such as the approval existing or the task being in an approvable state.

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