gateway_approval_create

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an authorization requirement ('Requires approvals:write') and implies a side-effecting creation, but it does not describe approval workflow implications, four-eyes behavior, or what state the request enters.

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 two sentences are front-loaded and contain no filler; purpose and permission are stated efficiently. However, at only about 16 words for an 11-parameter tool, the text is arguably too sparse to be well-sized for its complexity, though what is present is well structured.

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?

The output schema may cover return values, but the input side is under-described: approval_type has no allowed values, subject semantics are absent, and optional fields like required_role, four_eyes, and expires_in_days are unexplained. The auth hint and workflow purpose save it from being completely vacuous, but it is far from complete for a complex tool.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 11 parameters. Required fields like approval_type and subject are left undefined, and free-form values such as payload_json, required_role, and source_refs_json receive no explanation, so an agent cannot reliably choose values.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Create an approval request') and adds the agent-workflow context, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguishable from siblings such as gateway_approval_get, gateway_approval_list, and gateway_approval_decide.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over related approval or access-request tools, and no exclusions or workflow context such as 'use when a human decision is required'. The only usage-related hint is the approvals:write permission, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule.

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