approve-change-request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action, adding an approval, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether approvals can be duplicated or removed, any side effects on the change request's status, or what the response will be.

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 sentence with no filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool, though its brevity means it contributes relatively little beyond the tool's name.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain where approval fits in the change-request workflow, what happens after the last approval is added, or that the action can be reversed via remove-change-request-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 100%, and the single changeRequestId parameter is already documented as 'The identifier of the Change Request.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Adds') and resource ('Change Request'), clarifying that the tool records the caller's approval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like apply-change-request or close-change-request.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove-change-request-approval, apply-change-request, or close-change-request. The intended context is only implied by the name and verb; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow hints.

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