appcrane_approve_access_request

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: approval, role assignment, request completion, validation, and permission requirements. It does not detail side effects or error scenarios, but for a straightforward approval tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey all necessary information: the action, effects, validation, and permissions. No redundant or 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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and prerequisites. It lacks return value details but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 value beyond the schema by stating the default role and linking request_id to appcrane_list_access_requests. The schema already describes request_id, but the description clarifies its source and the role's effect.

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 it approves pending access requests, grants access at a specified role, and marks the request as done. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deny_access_request and list_access_requests.

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 mentions verification that the request is an access request and enumerates required roles (app-admin, owner, global admin). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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