approve_completion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of moving the job to COMPLETED status, which is crucial for understanding the tool's effect. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether this triggers notifications, is reversible, or requires specific permissions), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and usage criteria, the second explains the outcome and next steps. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the state transition (SUBMITTED → COMPLETED) and suggesting follow-up actions. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The description is mostly complete but has minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (job_id and agent_key). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 specific action ('Approve submitted work') on a specific resource ('for a job'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'request_revision' or 'mark_job_paid'. It explicitly mentions moving the job to COMPLETED status, which is a distinct outcome not covered by other 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use criteria: 'when the human has submitted their work for review (status = SUBMITTED) and you are satisfied with the evidence'. It also mentions subsequent actions ('after which you can pay and leave a review'), implicitly distinguishing it from alternatives like 'mark_job_paid' which handles payment separately.

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