approve_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Approve') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, or what happens after approval (e.g., does it trigger execution?). This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a tool that likely changes system state.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how approval relates to 'execute_command'), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role in the broader context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'commandId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Approve') and the target resource ('a pending command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'deny_command' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deny_command' or 'execute_command', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a pending command from 'get_pending_commands'. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without usage instructions.

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