dsh_resolve_approval

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds significant behavioral detail: 'Never auto-allows' and the need for approval_mode=prompt configuration. This clarifies safety-critical behavior not captured by the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is a necessary safety warning. No filler words or redundant information.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and safety constraint but omits details about side effects, consequences of each outcome, and prerequisites beyond 'pending.' It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'allow_once' and 'reject' which map to the outcome enum, but leaves taskId, requestId, sinceCursor, and expectedRevision unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Resolve one pending DSH sandbox-escalation approval as allow_once or reject.' This specifies the verb (resolve), the resource (approval), and the possible outcomes, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides a critical usage prerequisite: 'configure this Codex MCP tool with approval_mode=prompt before permitting allow_once.' It also implies the tool is for pending approvals, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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