request_approval

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the push notification to the owner, the approve/deny/expired outcomes, the blocking wait behavior, and the wait_seconds limit (max 290). This gives the agent a complete mental model of the interaction.

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 front-loaded and well-structured, moving from purpose to mechanics to usage to parameters. However, the final 'Returns: approved or denied or expired' line is partially redundant given that an output schema exists, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves, the meaning of each parameter, and what outcomes to expect. Nothing critical is missing 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines site (domain/URL, e.g. 'github.com'), action (short label, with examples like 'delete repository'), and wait_seconds (default 120, max 290). These examples and constraints add substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Ask your owner to approve a sensitive action before you perform it.' The scope is unambiguous and inherently distinguishes it from browser/navigation siblings like click or navigate. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before deleting data, changing settings, making purchases, modifying permissions, or any action that could have irreversible consequences.' Also provides the critical when-not: 'You should not perform the action until this returns approved.' Clear routing guidance is present.

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