plan_hq_auto_approval

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add some real behavioral context: 'guarded', the exclusion rule about not_evaluated, and the explicit warning to review output status/counts to see whether analysis was performed. However, it never discloses side effects such as whether approvals are actually applied, whether changes are reversible, or what authorization is required.

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 one-line description is terse, but it achieves brevity by omitting essential meaning. The schema then repeats 'depends on workflow' multiple times and points to empty threshold properties, so the overall definition is not a well-structured, information-dense description.

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 an 8-parameter workflow tool with no output schema and no annotations, this definition is incomplete. It leaves unclear how 'build' differs from 'run', what a valid plan looks like, how confirm_plan_id is obtained, and what side effects the workflow has. The x_suso_qc output contract and exclusion rule provide some structure, but the essential call semantics are missing.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Several key parameters—plan, profile, confirm_plan_id, questionnaire_identity—are completely undocumented, while others are hand-waved as 'depends on workflow'.

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', which identifies a general action and domain, but the resource is abstract and the tool name's 'auto_approval' behavior is never explained. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling apply_hq_auto_approval, which sounds like the actual executor of the same concept.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. The schema's note to 'review output status and counts' is a verification hint, not guidance for choosing this tool over apply_hq_auto_approval or the other QC siblings.

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