Approve Operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds some behavioral context by noting 'M1 has no signed external approval mechanism,' implying the approval is internal and informal. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to the plan upon approval, leaving gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that state the action and a key environmental constraint. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 single-parameter approval tool, the description covers core purpose and a key constraint, but it lacks details on return values, error behavior, or post-approval effects. With no output schema and no annotations, some information is missing, though the sibling tools provide workflow context.

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 does clarify that planId refers to a 'known, unexpired low-risk plan,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. However, it omits how to obtain or format the planId, leaving the parameter partially under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pairing — 'Approve a known, unexpired low-risk plan' — and clearly indicates the object and its qualifying conditions. It also differentiates from sibling tools like execute_approved_operation by focusing on the approval step rather than execution.

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 states that the plan must be 'known, unexpired low-risk,' which gives clear conditions for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool context implies a workflow where approval precedes execution, providing sufficient usage context.

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