apply_hq_auto_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'guarded QC/support workflow' without stating whether the tool mutates approval state, what confirm_plan_id is for, what side effects occur, or what outputs to expect. The x_suso_qc metadata in the schema is not part of the tool description and does not compensate for this lack of transparency.

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 concise in length but under-specified to the point of being uninformative. A single vague sentence does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set including plan_hq_auto_approval and numerous QC tools. The one-line description is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to understand, prepare, and safely invoke the tool.

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 tool description says nothing about parameters. Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the two required parameters 'plan' and 'confirm_plan_id' have no descriptions, so an agent cannot determine what values are expected. The description adds no semantic value beyond the incomplete schema.

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 says 'Build or run a guarded QC/support workflow' but does not explain what applying HQ auto-approval actually does. The two verbs 'build or run' create ambiguity and the description does not distinguish this tool from sibling plan_hq_auto_approval or the many qc_* 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_hq_auto_approval, apply_qc_feedback_batch, or hq_approve_interview. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided; the agent is left to infer entirely from the name.

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