submit_authorization_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior (returns requestId) and its intended pre-action role. However, it doesn't mention error scenarios, idempotency, or side effects like human notifications.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, then concise usage and next-step guidance. No filler.

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?

No output schema, but description explains the key return (requestId) and how to use it with sibling tools. Covers the tool's workflow well, though it could mention response details or failure modes for fuller completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. Description adds no parameter-level detail beyond schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 'Submit a human authorization request' – specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings by noting it's for risky/destructive actions and returns a requestId used with wait_for_approval or poll_request_status.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE performing any risky, destructive, or irreversible action' with concrete examples. Mentions follow-up tools (wait_for_approval, poll_request_status) but does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like get_request or cancel_request.

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