Review requisition

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

Annotations do not indicate read-only, idempotent, or destructive behavior, leaving the full burden on the description. The description mentions 'sequencing as the portal' but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the approval workflow, the meaning of stages, the role of actorId, or the effect of confirm/dryRun. The tool modifies state, yet the description omits essential behavioral context.

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 provides no information about the seven parameters, including their meaning, required constraints, or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which only lists enum values without explanations.

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 identifies the action (approve or decline) and the resource (requisition approval stage), with specific reference to the three-stage sequencing (admin, finance, management) that mirrors the portal. It is distinct from sibling review tools that target different entities.

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 implies the tool is for approving/declining requisition stages but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear from the name, but no additional guidance is given.

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