request_approvals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose useful behavior: 'Write operation' plus the concrete side effect that approval request emails are sent to the first approvers. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, idempotency (does re-triggering resend emails?), and error behavior, which matter for an email-firing mutation.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then mutation/write flag, then side effect, then ID discovery paths. Short and every sentence earns its place.

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 not be explained, and the description covers purpose, write nature, side effect, and ID sourcing for a simple 2-parameter tool. Only auth/permission context is missing, a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a discovery path the schema lacks: for job_id it specifies list_jobs → match by name, whereas the schema only says 'Greenhouse job ID'. The approval_flow_id guidance duplicates the schema hint, so value is marginal but real.

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 and resource: 'Trigger an approval request for a flow on a job.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_or_replace_approval_flow (which defines flows) and list_approvals_for_job (which lists them). An agent can tell what this does 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?

Gives concrete prerequisites: how to obtain job_id (list_jobs, match by name) and approval_flow_id (list_approvals_for_job). Clear context for when to use it, but no explicit exclusions such as when to define a flow instead of triggering one.

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