tb_approve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the decision is 'immutable' and that 'asserted provenance is not authentication.' This is valuable caveat information, though it does not cover side effects like idempotency handling or potential failure modes.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and an important caveat placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 is a complex tool with 13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the high-level purpose and one limitation; it omits return behavior, error/retry semantics, expected_revision meaning, and other operational details. It is far from complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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% and the description adds only high-level conceptual mapping (e.g., 'approval decision' implies the decision field, 'task gate' maps to task_id/gate_id). Most required parameters such as expected_revision, idempotency_key, coordination_mode, api_version, and schema_version remain unexplained, so the description does not compensate for schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a precise resource ('immutable direct-v1 approval decision with asserted provenance for a declared task gate'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools such as tb_grant or tb_handoff. It immediately identifies what action is performed and on what target.

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 for recording approval decisions at task gates but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when this tool should be chosen over similar siblings, leaving usage context only implicitly understood.

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