approve

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, and it delivers: it states the hard requirement for a human token, explains that agent-supplied tokens are refused, specifies failure mode when no token is configured (fail closed), and reveals the state transition and mock execution. This is excellent transparency about permissions, security, and side effects.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential information: purpose, token requirement, execution and failure behavior. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise while remaining comprehensive.

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 complexity (approval token security, state transition, failure modes), the description covers all key aspects: what it does, prerequisites, security caveat, and behavior on success and failure. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and no critical context is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It thoroughly explains the 'token' parameter's semantics (human-only, agent cannot supply it), but it does not explicitly describe 'approval_id' as the identifier of the staged write. The approval_id is inferable from context but not directly clarified, leaving a gap in parameter guidance.

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 opens with 'Approve a staged write,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from the sibling staging and query tools. It clarifies exactly which action is performed and the resulting state transition (pending → executed), leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 clearly conveys that this tool requires a human-provided approval token and that an agent-supplied token will be refused, making it explicit when the tool can be effectively used. While it does not name alternatives, the context of siblings (stage_invoice_payment, stage_po_amendment, list_pending_approvals) makes the workflow apparent, so the usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit about when not to use other tools.

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