approve_voice_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint: the tool requires an exact archived excerpt and does not infer approval. But it omits side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether this is a state-changing approval record.

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 tight sentence with no filler. Both the approval action and the key non-inference constraint are front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan.

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 five parameters, three required, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The meanings of slug, expected_revision, excerpt, approved_by, and note are all undocumented, and the agent is left guessing about how approval is recorded or confirmed.

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 mentions none of the five parameters: slug, expected_revision, excerpt, approved_by, or note. The phrase 'exact archived excerpt' vaguely hints at excerpt matching, but it is far too weak to compensate for the total absence of parameter guidance.

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 states a specific action ('mark... as approved') and a precise resource ('exact archived excerpt'), so the tool's core purpose is clear. It does not name any sibling tool or contrast itself with them, so it misses the top score for explicit differentiation.

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 'never infers approval' implies this tool should only be used when an explicit, exact approval is intended, which is a faint usage guideline. However, it gives no alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no context about how this relates to verification or content-management siblings.

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