record_human_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool appends a signed, scoped record, but it does not explain auth requirements, side effects, or what the output contains. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's action and object with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and keeps the purpose immediately understandable.

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?

Despite having an output schema and five required parameters, the description is minimal. It lacks details about when to use this tool, the meaning of the parameters, any prerequisites, or what the output represents. The tool is a write operation, so more context is necessary for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the five parameters. Although the parameter names (request_id, approver_token, etc.) offer some hints, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 a specific verb ('Create and append') and a distinct resource ('scoped signed human approval, denial, or revocation input'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_action_request or evaluate_action_gate by focusing on recording human decisions.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—it's for recording a human's approval/denial/revocation—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or any prerequisites. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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