approve_visual_baseline

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

With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the safety profile is already known, and the description adds value by requiring verification of the candidate digest and approval note and by mandating real human approval control. It does not describe the destructive effect itself, but the annotations already flag it.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: human authorization, verification responsibility, and host-level control. Nothing is padded and the important restriction is front-loaded.

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 approval action with no output schema, the description covers the critical safety and eligibility context. It omits the return value and exact effect of approval, but the name, annotations, and schema patterns cover enough for a cautious agent.

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 only hints at two of four parameters ('candidate summary' and 'approval note') and leaves taskId and expectedDigest semantics implicit. An agent needs to infer parameter roles from names and schema patterns.

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 names the action and resource ('approve visual baseline') and adds a defining precondition: it may only run after explicit user review and authorization. It does not fully define what approving does to the baseline, but it is enough to distinguish the operation from read-only or preparation tools.

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 clear when-to-use conditions ('after user explicitly reviewed and authorized') and an explicit exclusion ('automated rework must not call'). It names no specific sibling alternative, so it stops short of the top score, but an agent can decide when the tool is appropriate.

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