boss_agent_review_approve

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a side effect ('write to pending queue') but does not elaborate on state changes, required permissions, destructiveness, or whether the action is reversible. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and insufficient for an agent to anticipate all consequences.

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 a single sentence plus availability brackets, which is concise. However, there is a typo with double '可用性:', and the structure is simple. It conveys the core function efficiently but could be cleaner.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of the action. However, it lacks context about what the 'pending queue' is, error scenarios, and how the tool fits into the broader workflow. The availability constraints add some context, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'review item id'. The description does not add any new information about the parameter; it only restates the schema. With complete schema coverage, a baseline of 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 tool's function: 'approve manual review action and write to pending queue'. It uses a specific verb ('approve') and resource ('review action'), and the context of sibling tools like 'boss_agent_review_reject' and 'boss_agent_review' helps distinguish its role in the approval workflow.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boss_agent_review_reject'. Although it mentions availability (roles and platforms), it lacks information on prerequisites, typical workflow steps, or conditions for approval versus rejection.

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