approve_visual_baseline

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses essential behavioral safeguards: the agent must verify the candidate digest against the approval note, automatic rework calls are prohibited, and the host must implement real approval controls. These are non-obvious operational constraints that materially affect correct use.

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 three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The most critical constraint—explicit human approval—is front-loaded, followed by verification requirements and the host-level enforcement note.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral and safety requirements needed to invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly thin on what the approval actually changes in the system's state, but this is largely inferable and covered by schema structure.

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. It adds meaning by tying the expectedDigest to the approvalNote and requiring verification between them, but it leaves candidateId and optional taskId semantically unexplained and relies on schema names and formats for the rest.

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 ('approve') and resource ('visual baseline') and adds an unmistakable precondition: approval is only valid after explicit human review and authorization. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like prepare_visual_baseline, verify_task, and rework_task.

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 explicitly states when the tool may be invoked (after user review and authorization) and when it may not be invoked (automatic rework), and it requires the host to enforce actual approval control. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the prohibition provides strong routing guidance.

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