request_approval

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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals the key behavioral contract: a dialog shows a server-written summary, only an explicit 'yes' produces an approval_token, and the original write tool must be called again. This prevents the agent from assuming request_approval itself performs the pending action.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact two-step workflow. Every sentence contributes essential information with no 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the full call flow: when to invoke, what the dialog does, how the token is obtained, and the follow-up call. The only minor gap is that the provenance of pending_action_id is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly define pending_action_id. It does add useful provenance context ('from a write tool called without a token'), which implies the ID refers to the pending action returned by that tool, but it does not say how to obtain the value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the traveler to approve a pending action' and frames it as the approval step for write tools called without a token. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like book_offer or confirm_order_change, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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?

It gives clear context by telling the agent to call this only when a write tool was called without a token, then call the same write tool again with the returned token. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the flow is unmistakable.

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