approve_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the human decision aspect and the consequence (materials/apply can proceed), but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or any permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It efficiently conveys both the action and its purpose without padding or redundancy.

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, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details about preconditions, the nature of the match being approved, and how the result is returned. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral context is still thin.

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 mention the 'finding_id' parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning or context about what ID should be passed, leaving the agent to infer it from the schema alone.

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 action: 'Approve a match (human decision)' and the purpose: 'so materials/apply can proceed.' This distinguishes it from siblings like discard_match and start_application, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 phrase 'so materials/apply can proceed' implies the tool is used as a prerequisite step in a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not say when not to use it or contrast with discard_match.

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