rm_create_approval

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds some behavioral context by saying the tool can 'submit or approve' records and by limiting the operation to time entries and expense items. It does not disclose side effects, status transitions, permissions, or whether notifications or locking occur, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is easy to scan and quickly communicates the core resource and type constraint, though the compression costs some clarity in purpose and behavior.

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 tool that creates or approves records, the description omits important context: valid status values, relationship between notes/status and the approval action, behavior differences between submitting and approving, and how this tool relates to approval-management siblings. The output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values, but the remaining gaps are material.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies approvable_type's allowed values; it does not explain the meaning of status (despite its default 'approved'), what notes are for, or how approvable_ids should be provided. This leaves most parameters semantically underdocumented.

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 identifies a clear action area ('Submit or approve') and the target resource ('approvable records'), with explicit allowed types ('time_entries' or 'expense_items'). However, 'Submit or approve' is slightly ambiguous about whether it creates an approval object or directly changes record status, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rm_update_time_approval_status.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It only scopes valid values for approvable_type, which is more parameter guidance than usage context. An agent would not know whether to use this tool versus rm_update_time_approval_status or rm_delete_approval.

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