add_sighting_with_approval

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

The description discloses the core conditional behavior and the blocked/proposal result, but lacks details about side effects, idempotency, error handling, or the approval workflow. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core behavior. However, it lacks structure such as parameter descriptions or usage examples, which would improve clarity.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient to fully understand tool behavior, prerequisites, return values, or error conditions. The presence of approval-related parameters is not explained.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation for any of the 8 parameters (value, source, event_id, attribute_id, sighting_type, approved, approval_token, approval_request_id). The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent to infer meanings.

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's function: adding a sighting to MISP subject to policy and approval, with an explicit fallback behavior (blocked/proposal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_attribute or propose_event which handle different resources.

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?

While the description implies usage for approved sightings, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like propose_attribute or other add tools without approval. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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