kiln_spend_caps_request_order_approval

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important two-step flow and that a challenge_id is returned, but omits authorization requirements (whose order, which role), whether the pending challenge expires, and whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the step/2 marker, then the condition, then the return/next-step. The condition sentence partially restates the first sentence, and the 'Args:' block format is slightly verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully explained, yet the description still notes the challenge_id and the follow-up tool, which is the critical handoff. It is short of complete only on permission/expiry behavior for a mutation-style two-step approval.

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, and it does: order_id is defined as the specific refused order, and max_dollars is clarified as the order total being approved (not a new cap), which resolves a genuine ambiguity. Still lacks any format or validation hints.

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?

States a specific action (request approval for a single over-cap order) and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming step 2 (kiln_spend_caps_confirm_order_approval) and by contrasting with raising the cap 'for good' (i.e., kiln_spend_caps_request_change). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Clear triggering condition: Kiln already refused the order for exceeding the person's spend cap, and the user wants a one-off approval rather than a permanent cap change. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name the alternative tool as a contrast, but the 'without raising the cap for good' phrasing makes the distinction inferable.

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