Approve Task

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

The description discloses significant side effects: it moves the task file from `_lifecycle/review/` to `_lifecycle/done/` and appends an `approve_task` event. It also warns about the no-op behavior on v2 projects Poisson, which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations. Since no annotations are provided, this is a strong disclosure; however, it could mention whether the operation is reversible or if the event is auditable, but those are minor omissions.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first line, followed by a brief mechanism, a usage note, and a version-specific caveat. Every sentence delivers essential information, and the structure front-loads the primary action and transition. It avoids redundancy and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexityholde (lifecycle transition, file moves, and event logging), the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its side effects, satisfying the requirements. The presence of an output schema (though not detailed here) and full parameter coverage in the description ensure nothing critical is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by explaining that `note` is an 'Optional approval note appended to the transition event' and `actor` is the 'Role code of the approver'. These details go beyond the schema's terse descriptions, explaining the purpose and default behavior. The description's mention of the lifecycle transition adds context for `task_id` as well.

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 a task under review') and the lifecycle transition (`review → done`), specifying the exact resource and state change. It also differentiates from siblings like `reject_task`, `submit_task`, and `finish_task` by naming the specific state transition and the file move, making its purpose distinct.

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: 'Typically called by ADMIN after inspecting the work,' providing a clear context. It also notes that on v2 projects it is a no-op, which is a critical conditional that prevents misuse. It does not name an alternative tool but the context is sufficient given the sibling list includes `reject_task` and `mark_human_approved`, which are implicitly alternatives.

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