decide_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a gated operation that must not be self-invoked, and a safer out-of-band channel exists. It does not describe the downstream effect of a decision, idempotency, or error behavior for an unknown id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical guardrail, then the alternate channel. No sentence is redundant and the IMPORTANT marker directs attention to the highest-risk instruction.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation gate with no annotations, the description supplies the essential decision-routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of describing the post-decision effect or failure modes, which would round it out.

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 coverage is 67%: 'reason' and 'approve' are documented in the schema, while 'id' is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Record a human decision on a pending request.' The decision-recording role is clearly distinct from siblings like request_approval and check_approval, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly defines when to use (only when the human driving the session asks the agent to record their decision), when NOT to use (an agent must never self-approve), and the preferred alternative (the out-of-band CLI 'approval-gate approve <id>'). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

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