ops_execute_approved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it usefully explains that SQLite state transitions, the exact digest, expiration, and remote agent nonce/signature are re-checked. It also states the safety invariant that calling the tool cannot bypass approval. It does not describe failure behavior, side effects, or required permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and gating condition. The remaining sentences add safety context without excessive length, though 'cannot bypass approval' slightly overlaps with the list of checks. Overall it is efficient and 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?

The description covers the critical approval gate and validation checks, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained here. But it omits how an agent obtains the required request_id, how to verify approval status beforehand, and what happens on failure. For a safety-critical execution tool, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The only parameter, request_id, is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name implies a request identifier, but the description adds no meaning about where it comes from, its relation to the approved digest, or any format expectation. This is a clear gap for a one-parameter execution tool.

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 verb and resource: execute a request, gated on prior approval of an immutable digest. It also communicates the core constraint (cannot bypass approval), which helps distinguish it from a generic execution sibling like ops_run_command. It does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clear condition for use: the immutable digest must already be approved. However, it does not say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as ops_pending_approvals or ops_request_status for checking approval state. Usage is implied rather than fully instructed.

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