myob_approval_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one behavioral constraint (exact approval_phrase format) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens after approval—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the critical phrase requirement, making it concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex approval workflow, the description is minimal. It lacks context about the approval lifecycle (e.g., whether approval triggers commit), error cases, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for approval_phrase (the exact format), while operation_id, approver, and reason are left to be inferred from their names. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 action ('Approve') and the resource ('a prepared MYOB write'), which aligns with the tool's name and distinguishes it from sibling approval tools like deny. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is 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 implies that this tool should be used after a 'prepared MYOB write' and provides the exact approval phrase format, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like deny or commit, leaving the usage context partially implied.

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