replace_approver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core traits: 'Write operation' and the precondition that the removed approver must not have approved or rejected yet. It omits permissions required, whether the added approver inherits any pending state, and failure modes, so it is helpful but not complete.

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 purpose and write-operation note are front-loaded, followed by the usage example and ID resolution. Every sentence is functional, though the lookup routing is slightly list-like and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, trigger, ID resolution, and the key precondition; only permission/auth context is missing, which is a minor gap for this four-param mutation.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning by mapping each ID to its lookup path (job_id→list_jobs, approval_flow_id→list_approvals_for_job, user IDs→list_users) and by constraining remove_user_id semantically. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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+resource: 'Replace one approver with another in an approval flow.' The 'one approver with another' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling create_or_replace_approval_flow, which replaces a whole flow. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger ('swap John for Sarah on the Backend approval') and routes ID resolution to the right tools (list_users, list_jobs, list_approvals_for_job), plus a precondition that the removed approver must not have acted yet. It does not name when to prefer a sibling like create_or_replace_approval_flow instead, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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