approve_visual_baseline

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds critical behavioral context: this is a human-gated approval action, automatic rework must not call it, and the host must enforce real approval. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive and front-loaded with the core approval condition. The second sentence adds a safety constraint and the third adds an implementation requirement. No wasted words, though the Chinese phrasing is slightly dense.

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?

For a destructive, human-gated approval tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical safety context and usage constraints. However, it does not explain what happens after approval, what the expectedDigest is for, or how the candidate summary should be obtained, leaving some operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it only explains the approvalNote verification concept and does not explain candidateId, expectedDigest, or taskId semantics beyond what the schema's names and formats imply. The description adds some context about the approval note but leaves parameter meaning mostly to inference.

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: approve a visual baseline only after explicit user review and authorization. It clearly distinguishes this from preparing a baseline or other task operations, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explicit usage conditions: only after user review and authorization, must verify candidate summary against approval note, and explicitly forbids automatic rework invocation. It also states the host must implement actual approval control, which is strong when-to-use guidance.

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