wait_for_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout behavior, and possible statuses (APPROVED, REJECTED, EXPIRED). It does not mention error handling or return format, but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 critical blocking behavior, and zero filler. Every clause adds value, and the instruction about not proceeding on non-approval is clear and action-oriented.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the result contains. It names the statuses but not the overall response structure (e.g., whether it's an object with a status field). For a blocking HITL tool, this is a moderate gap; the complexity of routing options is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the tool blocks and returns a status. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it neither degrades nor enhances schema understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Submit an authorization request and BLOCK until a human approves or rejects it (or until the timeout elapses).' It uses specific verbs (submit, block) and identifies the resource (authorization request), distinguishing it from siblings like submit_authorization_request which likely does not block.

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 explicitly positions this as 'the primary tool for human-in-the-loop workflows' and provides clear post-conditions: 'proceed ONLY if status is APPROVED' and 'do NOT proceed' on REJECTED or EXPIRED. It lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions, but the guidance on when to use it is strong.

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