agent_approval

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses that unknown dialogs become a typed 'blocked' error and that approvals are one-time digest-bound. It does not mention side effects of the 'respond' action or any authentication/authorization requirements, but the disclosed error behavior is meaningful.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, action-oriented. The alternative to claude_approval and the error path are both packed into a short block. Dense but front-loaded; minor loss for punctuation/style overall not needed.

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?

The tool has an output schema and moderate complexity. The description covers the purpose, the error case, and the sibling alternative, but leaves 'session_id' semantics and when to use 'inspect' versus 'respond' undeclared. An agent still has to infer several usage details.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It states the digest-bound one-time approval/deny, which maps to 'observed_prompt_digest' and the enum choices, but it never explains 'session_id' or both possible action values. The agent is left to infer these from names and enums.

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 explicitly names the resource (Codex approvals), the verbs (inspect/respond), and the outcome (digest-bound one-time approval or denial). It also distinguishes this tool from 'claude_approval' in the sibling list, so an agent can immediately tell it is the Codex-specific approval tool.

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 description gives a direct alternative ('Claude uses existing claude_approval') and an explicit exclusion ('versus permanent approval is not chosen'). It does not explicitly state the general when-to-use condition, but the alternative and limitation provide clear context.

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