record_user_approval

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses that it is a stub and returns a structured 'not_implemented' marker, which is key behavioral info. Could be improved by noting if input data is stored or ignored.

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?

Description is three sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and essential usage caveats in the next two. No filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics and does not explain the return marker structure, which the output schema might cover but is not described.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (tool_name, descriptor_hash, approved, approval_ref). Agent must infer meaning from names, which is insufficient for accurate invocation.

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 states the tool captures user approval state for a tool, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'audit_record_decision' which may have overlapping function.

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 indicates it's a stub and not yet fully implemented, guiding agents not to rely on it for persistent storage. But it lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives among sibling tools.

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