review_approve

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the transformation into a normal record, the consent/precondition constraints, the 'never approve your own suggestions' rule, and the write-requires-project requirement. This is meaningful disclosure well beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints in compact sentences. Slightly dense with multiple conditional rules packed together, but each sentence carries necessary guidance rather than 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?

For a 10-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects an agent needs: consent preconditions, the write requirement, and edit-before-approve semantics. Minor gaps remain (no mention of move_to's misfiled-item cleanup purpose, no outcome confirmation), but it is largely complete.

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 60%, and the description compensates by explaining that summary/details and priority/category/component act as edits applied before approval, and that user_request must quote the user's words. It adds real meaning over the schema, though move_to and model are left entirely to the schema.

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 a specific verb (Approve) and resource (review item), plus the concrete outcome: the item 'becomes a normal FlowState record.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling review_reject, which the description implicitly contrasts by referencing approve/reject decisions.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-NOT-to-use conditions: only call when the user has explicitly told the agent 'in this chat' to approve or reject that specific item, never self-initiate, never approve own suggestions. It also names the alternative path (edit-then-approve by passing corrected fields), leaving nothing to inference.

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