nemesis_approve_routes

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by stating the auth requirement (NEMESIS_API_KEY) and the consequence ('so it is ready to enforce'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose whether the action is reversible or if it replaces previous approvals, though destructiveHint=false covers overall safety.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence carries essential information: what it does, when to run it, and a prerequisite. No extraneous content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, timing, and auth. It could mention expected return or edge cases (e.g., no learned behaviors), but these are minor gaps. The workflow context and parameter provenance make it reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter appId, which already explains it comes from nemesis_create_app or nemesis_list_apps. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Approve all learned behaviors for an app so it is ready to enforce.' It uses a specific verb (approve) and identifies the resource (learned behaviors for an app), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by placing it in the create → learn → approve → enforce loop.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run after the app has seen traffic or after nemesis_run_learn.' It also gives a prerequisite (requires NEMESIS_API_KEY) and frames the tool within a workflow, making it clear when this should be invoked relative to other tools.

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