glitchrupt_resolve_approval

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false; the description explains that the call stops reminder generation rather than deleting underlying approval state, and that key_prefix cleanup is restricted to owned keys. That ownership scoping is real behavioral context the annotations do not carry. It stops short of saying what happens when a key is unknown or already resolved.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter contract, then the timing rule and safety boundary. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing load-bearing information.

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?

With only two mutually exclusive parameters, an output schema already covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else the agent needs: when to call, which parameter to pick, and the ownership boundary. No material gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: the parameters are mutually exclusive ('supply exactly one'), with key selecting one approval and key_prefix selecting a whole session's keys. It omits any hint of the accepted key format or an example, which the schema only enforces via a regex pattern.

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 and resource: stopping pending approval reminders, with the two entry modes (single key vs. owned key_prefix for session cleanup). Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named — an agent can infer this is the cleanup counterpart to glitchrupt_pending_approvals and glitchrupt_wait_for_approval — but no sibling is explicitly referenced.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: resolve once the wait is answered, cancelled, or no longer blocks work. Also states an exclusion, 'never clear another chat's keys', which bounds scope. It does not, however, name alternatives such as pending_approvals for inspection, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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