gateway_approval_comment

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

With no behavioral annotations beyond a title, this description provides few behavioral details. It verifies the write permission and that the tool adds content, but it does not explain if the comment is append-only, whether it changes the approval state, or what side effects `decision_payload_json` may cause.

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 short, well-structured two-sentence definition. The primary action is front-loaded and the permission requirement is useful rather than padding.

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 three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and thin annotations, this description is not complete enough. The absent guidance on `decision_payload_json` and the interaction with the approval workflow prevents an agent from fully understanding the tool's effect, even though an output schema exists.

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 needed to compensate by explaining parameters; it does not. `approval_id` and `comment` are inferable from the tool name and description, but `decision_payload_json` remains unexplained, leaving a meaningful semantic gap.

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 names the verb 'add' and the resource 'approval', and clarifies the content as a clarification or comment. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool from finalization actions like gateway_approval_decide, though it does not explicitly call out that alternative.

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 only usage guidance is the authorization prerequisite 'requires approvals:write'. The description does not state when to choose this tool over gateway_approval_decide, gateway_approval_create, or other approval-related tools, nor does it give any exclusions or limitations.

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