approve_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: moves task file from _lifecycle/review/ to _lifecycle/done/, appends an approve_task event, and is a no-op on v2 projects. This gives a complete picture of side effects and constraints.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is meaningful and without fluff. Highly 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 the moderate complexity (state transition, file move, event logging) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers lifecycle details, file movement, event appending, v2 no-op, and role requirements. No gaps remain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra context, e.g., 'Optional approval note appended to the transition event' for the note parameter. Baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Approve a task under review: review → done (v3 lifecycle)', specifying the verb, resource, and state transition. Distinguishes from siblings like reject_task and submit_task.

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?

Indicates 'Typically called by ADMIN after inspecting the work', providing clear usage context. Also notes 'On v2 projects this is a no-op', effectively excluding certain scenarios. Lacks explicit naming of alternative tools.

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