Approve workflow

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnly=false) and idempotency. The description adds that validation is part of the approval and scopes the action to the workflow version, not the video job, which is beyond structured fields. It does not mention side effects or return behavior, but the bar is lower due to 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence is a concise clarification. No filler.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, it omits clarification of expectedVersion's role and assumes the concept of 'inspected workflow version' without further context, which could lead to incorrect parameter usage. It is adequate but has clear 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 50% (only jobId has a minimal description). The description does not explain expectedVersion's meaning or type beyond the word 'version', leaving a significant semantic gap. It adds no parameter-level detail.

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 ('Validate and approve') on a specific resource ('inspected workflow version') and explicitly disambiguates from video job approval/publishing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_job and publish_job.

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 implies usage after inspection ('inspected workflow version') and clarifies what it does not do ('does not approve or publish the video job'), providing negative guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use versus approve_job/publish_job.

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