paperclip_approve

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: false. The description adds behavioral context: it triggers a workflow, returns an updated approval with status 'approved' and approvedAt timestamp, and details error codes (401, 403, 404, 422) with their meanings. No contradiction 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 well-structured with sections for arguments, returns, examples, and error handling. It front-loads the warning and purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains return values (updated approval with status and timestamp). It covers error handling exhaustively and provides context about board-only usage and workflow triggering. This is complete for a single-parameter tool with complex error scenarios.

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% for the single parameter (approvalId described as 'Approval UUID'). The description adds an example ('apr_abc123') and states it is required, but these add minimal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Approve a pending approval request, triggering the associated workflow.' It uses a specific verb (approve) and resource (approval request), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternatives like paperclip_reject or paperclip_request_revision for different actions.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use when: approving a hire_agent or budget_override request after board review (requires board API key)' and 'Don't use when: you want to reject or request changes — use paperclip_reject or paperclip_request_revision instead.' It also specifies prerequisites (board API key) and error handling scenarios for erroneous use.

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