manage_change_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral impact; it lists action names and parameter bindings but does not disclose side effects (e.g., what cancel/remind do), permissions required, or whether actions are destructive. The parameter-action mapping is useful but insufficient for transparency.

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 a compact, well-structured docstring: a one-line summary followed by an aligned parameter list with inline action applicability. No filler or redundancy; every line contributes.

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 an 8-parameter, 9-action dispatcher with no annotations, the description covers action-to-parameter mapping but lacks explanation of each action's semantics (e.g., what 'remind' or 'set_chain_rule' actually do), prerequisites, and expected behavior. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns, but the description still leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning absent from the schema by mapping each parameter to the actions that use it (e.g., 'approval_id: Approval ID (view, remind, cancel)') and enumerating valid string values for action, approval_type, and approval_chain_type. However, it does not specify conditional requirements or constraints beyond 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?

Description opens with 'Manage approvals and approval groups for a change', a specific verb+resource, and enumerates nine distinct actions (list_groups, create_group, update_group, etc.), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like manage_change_task or manage_change_note.

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 clear context by scoping the tool to approvals and approval groups and listing the supported actions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions.

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