paperclip_create_approval

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates state by creating something, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, whether duplicates are prevented, what state the approval starts in, or what the response looks like.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundant content. The key action and domain context are front-loaded.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on workflow context: it never explains what happens after creation, how the approval decision process fits in, or what side effects to expect. The simple parameter list prevents a lower score, but the behavioral gaps remain significant.

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 both parameters (title and description) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('approval request'), and adds the governance-gate context, making the tool's function immediately clear. It is also distinct from sibling tools like paperclip_approval_decision (which acts on approvals) and paperclip_list_approvals (which lists them).

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 phrase 'for governance gate' implies the context in which this tool should be used, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives or mentions any exclusions. An agent can infer the use case, but the routing guidance is only implicit.

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