approve_sie_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses that this modifies files on disk, seals an immutable ProofLink receipt, and requires the scope sie:queue:write. This goes beyond a simple 'approve' and alerts the agent to side effects and governance.

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 well-organized with the purpose first, followed by side effects and prerequisites. It is slightly verbose with the capitalization of 'EXECUTE CLASS' and policy phrasing, but each sentence contributes meaningful 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, prerequisite, and required scope. However, it does not describe the return value or failure behavior, which is notable since there is no output schema.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single index parameter, including instructions to use get_sie_queue. The description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 approves a specific SIE security finding by queue index, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sie_queue (listing) and approve_learning_item (different resource). It also details the actions taken (applies fixer, seals receipt, removes from queue), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to get the index from get_sie_queue first, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling list implies distinct use cases.

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