Approve or deny Hermes run

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: that this action writes redacted receipts and requires external-side-effect gates, revealing side-effect behavior beyond the bare annotation flags. It discloses the permission tier. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense sentence that packs the API route, action, side effects, and auth gates efficiently. Every clause earns its place. It could arguably be split for readability, but the length is appropriate and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. Given this is a state-mutating approval action (not read-only), the description does enough by disclosing side effects (redacted receipts), auth tier, and gates. Slightly more detail on the relationship between approved/scope/note semantics would push this to 5, but given the rich structured data available, this is adequate.

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 100%, so all 4 parameters (run_id, approved, note, scope) are documented in the schema. The description adds the high-level context that this 'submits an approval decision' and mentions receipts, but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics like how scope interacts with approved=false or what approved=false with scope means. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 is a typed POST wrapper that submits an approval decision for a paused Hermes run, writing redacted receipts. The verb is specific (submit approval decision) and the resource is clear (paused run). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the 74 sibling tools are mostly unrelated API operations, so a dedicated approval action is self-evident in purpose.

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 states it requires 'api_call tier with live, agent-tool, and external-side-effect gates' which gives the agent clear authorization context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives. The approval-vs-run-context is implied by the word 'paused' but not elaborated as an explicit condition.

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