emet_client_approve

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the read-limited state of unapproved clients and the authorization constraint (only the owner or the EMET_COS_TAG chief-of-staff bot may decide). It does not explain consequences of a deny (e.g., whether the client is blocked permanently), which is the main remaining gap.

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 action and resource, then state model, then authorization, then discovery. Four sentences that each carry information; the parenthetical definition of a client is slightly verbose but aids disambiguation.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state transition, the authority requirement, and where to find pending items. The main omission is the outcome/aftermath of a deny decision.

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 80%, so the schema already documents tag, as, from, reason, and decision with meaningful descriptions. The description adds no syntax or usage detail for these parameters beyond pointing at client_approvals.pending, so the baseline 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?

States specific verbs (approve or deny) and a specific resource (a new client EMET flagged on first write), and defines what a 'client' is. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like emet_invite_create or emet_member_access_create.

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?

Explains the trigger context (clients pending after being flagged on first write) and points to emet_initialize/emet_status as where pending clients are listed. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, but the authorization condition and discovery path give clear when-to-use guidance.

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