approve_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses admin-only access and SSE notification on approval, but lacks details on rejection behavior (e.g., whether proposer is notified) and other side effects. This is a moderate disclosure for a 3-parameter tool.

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 two short sentences that cover purpose, access, and notification. No wasted words; front-loaded and extremely concise.

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 main points (purpose, access, notification) but does not describe the return value or behavior on rejection. Since no output schema exists, more detail on response would improve completeness. Adequate but not full.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., restates action enum). Baseline is 3; no extra value contributed.

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 tool approves or rejects a strategy (verb+resource), restricts to admin, and notes SSE notification. This differentiates from siblings like propose_strategy (creates proposals) and apply_strategy (executes approved strategy).

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 explicitly says '仅 admin 可调用' (only admin can call), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback_strategy or veto_strategy, relying on implied context from sibling names.

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