approve_spend

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints: only HITL_REQUIRED proposals are approvable, and BLOCKED / hard-rule failures are not. However, it does not state whether approval executes the spend, what side effects occur, what permissions are required, or what the return behavior is.

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 two sentences with no filler. The key use condition and hard exclusion are stated immediately and clearly.

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 tool with four parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct the action/policy payload, what a successful approval returns, or how to obtain the HITL_REQUIRED proposal in the first place.

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 only 25% (just the approver field has a description). The tool description does not explain the action object, policy object, or committed_today semantics. Since schema coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but does not.

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 states a specific action ('Human-in-the-loop approval') applied to a specific resource ('a proposal that returned HITL_REQUIRED') and explicitly excludes BLOCKED / hard-rule failures. This clearly distinguishes it from evaluative sibling tools like evaluate_spend_gate.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (proposals that returned HITL_REQUIRED) and when not to use it (BLOCKED / hard-rule failures), with spec section references. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the exclusion criteria provide strong situational guidance.

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