demo3_approve_consent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behaviors: the token is scoped, mock, ephemeral, and never leaves the server process. This informs the agent of important constraints and safety aspects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds essential 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?

The description covers purpose and key behavioral traits. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it could be more complete by describing what the token can be used for (e.g., with demo3_protected_action) or error handling (e.g., invalid consentId). It is still fairly complete for a simple approval 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the consentId parameter already described as from demo3_request_consent. The description adds no additional semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Approve) and the resource (a pending consent request), and specifies the output (a scoped mock token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like demo3_request_consent, which likely handles the request side.

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 implies usage after obtaining a consent ID from demo3_request_consent (via parameter description), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisite conditions beyond the consent ID.

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