approve_task

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 effectively describes key traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'approve'), requires specific prerequisites ('marked as done'), and notes it's CLI-only with human intervention, which adds important context about execution constraints and user involvement.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose and prerequisites, and the second adds critical behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with prerequisites), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, and behavioral traits like CLI-only and human intervention. However, it lacks details on what happens after approval (e.g., status changes) or error cases, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (projectId and taskId) with examples. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or additional constraints, meeting the baseline for 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 specific action ('Approve a completed task') and the resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_task' or 'finalize_project'. It specifies that tasks must be marked as 'done' with completedDetails, adding precision beyond just the verb.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: only after a task is marked as 'done' with completedDetails. It implies an alternative (not approving if not done) but does not explicitly name sibling tools like 'update_task' for marking tasks as done, nor does it specify when not to use it (e.g., for pending tasks).

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