Approve Reflection

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

The openWorldHint annotation indicates potential side effects, but the description only says 'incorporate it into the bot's learning and behavior' without elaborating on consequences (e.g., irreversibility, state changes, or impact on other reflections). This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that captures the essence without redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally indicate the return value or confirmation. It also omits potential prerequisites (e.g., reflection must be in 'pending' state). The openWorldHint suggests side effects but no details. While adequate, there are clear gaps.

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?

The schema already describes the 'id' parameter with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional context (e.g., how to obtain the ID or eligibility conditions), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Approve' and the resource 'bot reflection', and explicitly says the action incorporates the reflection into the bot's learning and behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reject_reflection' and 'sync_reflections'.

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 implies usage for incorporating reflections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rejecting or syncing. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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