Hedgehog

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

Discloses state transition ('transitions to COMPLETED status') and terminal nature. Given zero annotations, description carries full burden but omits mechanistic details: what 'approval' entails (file commit? status update?), irreversibility, and relationship to spike_rollback sibling.

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?

Front-loaded with action and outcome in first sentence. Two follow-up sentences reinforce finality without excessive redundancy. Args section efficiently documents the single parameter. No significant bloat.

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?

Sufficient for a single-parameter state transition tool with output schema present. Covers core action and terminal state. However, given mutation nature and zero annotations, should specify prerequisite steps (ADR generation) and confirm irreversibility.

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 coverage is 0% (name property lacks description). Description compensates by documenting the parameter as 'Spike name' in Args section, providing basic semantics but lacking constraints (format, valid characters, existence requirements).

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?

Clear specific action ('Approve the ADR') and resource ('spike') with explicit outcome ('mark as completed'). Distinguishes from sibling spike_approve_meta by specifying 'ADR' versus meta-approval, and signals finality via 'final gate' language.

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?

Provides implied temporal context ('This is the final gate') suggesting use at workflow end. However, lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'only after spike_generate_adr') or distinction from spike_complete_branch/spike_archive alternatives.

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