Approval Respond

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

The description transparently indicates that this tool relays a human decision (implying a state change to an approval) and includes a behavioral constraint against autonomous invocation. However, it does not detail specific side effects (e.g., notifications, audit logs) beyond the core action, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clear usage caveat. It avoids unnecessary wording and efficiently communicates the necessary 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema (noted in context), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the caution. It does not explicitly explain parameter values or return format, but the parameter names and output schema likely compensate for that; a slightly richer explanation would make it fully complete.

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 zero descriptions for the three parameters (note, token, decision), and the description does not clarify their meaning or expected values. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level detail, leaving some ambiguity for critical inputs like 'decision'.

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 purpose (relaying a human decision on a parked approval) with a specific verb ('relay') and resource ('parked approval'). It also distinguishes from autonomous use by explicitly noting it should only be called when a person has provided a decision.

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 usage guidance: 'only when a person has told you their decision' and instructs 'Do not call this on your own initiative.' This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool should or should not be invoked.

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