paperclip_resubmit_approval

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

Discloses key behavior: returns updated approval with status 'pending', error codes (401, 404, 422) and their meanings. Annotations show destructiveHint false, which is consistent. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value. It covers prerequisites, state checks, and error scenarios. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is complete.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds an example format for approvalId ('apr_abc123') and clarifies that comment is optional and its purpose. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Resubmit an approval request after addressing revision feedback', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like paperclip_approve, paperclip_reject, and paperclip_request_revision by focusing on resubmission after revision.

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?

Includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, directing to check status with paperclip_get_approval first. Error handling also guides on state mismatches, providing clear context for when to use this tool vs. others.

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