approve_pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that approving grants one-time re-run permission and that it cannot change policy. Missing details on deny action behavior, return values, and side effects, but adequate for core function.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant information. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, action types, and a key behavioral constraint. Missing details on deny action, return format, and parameter validation, but functional overall.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description implies action enum values and the role of approvalId for approve/deny, but does not explicitly define each parameter or their requirements. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 lists or resolves pending payments in queue mode, with specific verb 'list or resolve' and resource 'payments waiting for human approval'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on approval workflow, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from each sibling.

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 specifies it only resolves payments already queued for approval and cannot change spending policy, giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings.

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