Approve GL Entry

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds that it sets status to 'approved', records approver+timestamp, and requires specific roles. The trust area warning adds context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately concise, with the first sentence clearly stating purpose. The bilingual version adds length but is acceptable. Every sentence adds value (action, effect, requirements, warning, example). Could be slightly tighter but overall effective.

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 simple approval action with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, role requirements, usage caution, and an example. It explains the state change and audit trail. Complete enough for an AI agent.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (entryId and notes) with 100% coverage. The description provides an example value for entryId but no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (General Ledger journal entry), and the context (pending review). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frihet_gl_entry_reject and frihet_gl_entry_audit_log. The bilingual content does not detract.

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 provides explicit role requirements (gestor/admin), a trust area warning with double-check instruction, and an example ID. It implies when to use (pending approval) but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if already approved). Differentiates from reject and audit siblings.

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