Resolve or escalate durable approval requests by choosing to allow once, allow for the task, deny, or ask the user. Make explicit decisions on pending approvals.
Resolve or escalate a durable approval request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| decision | Yes | ||
| approval_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-dev.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says the tool 'resolves or escalates', but does not state whether it mutates state, requires permissions, or has side effects like sending notifications. The word 'durable' hints at persistence but is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.
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 single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks the detail needed to be functional. It is appropriately short but not informative enough, so it earns a mid-range score for structure.
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?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what decisions mean, what 'durable' implies, or what happens after resolution/escalation. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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 schema has 3 parameters (task_id, approval_id, decision) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The enum for decision (ALLOW_ONCE, ALLOW_TASK, DENY, ASK_USER) is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.
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 uses specific verbs ('resolve' and 'escalate') with a clear resource ('approval request'), making the core purpose understandable. It differentiates from approval.get (which presumably retrieves) and process tools by focusing on the response action. However, it does not elaborate on what 'resolve' or 'escalate' entail in practical terms.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like approval.get or process tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.