approve

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most behavioral disclosure. It explains that allow=true runs the pending tool call, allow=false tells the sub-agent the user declined it, and that decided is false when the handle is unknown or no pending approval exists.

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 dense but front-loaded: the primary action and condition come first, followed by discovery guidance and return semantics. Every clause contributes useful information without wasted setup.

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?

With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description supplies the missing context: how to find waiting runs, what the two allow outcomes mean, and how to interpret the returned decided flag. Nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters. The description still adds meaning by explaining the downstream effect of allow=true versus allow=false on the sub-agent and by clarifying that handle refers to a waiting run.

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 states a specific action (answer a run waiting with status AwaitingApproval) and distinguishes the approval case from elicitation-based approval. It also names the discovery siblings (await, status) for finding waiting runs, so an agent can tell it apart from those 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?

It gives a clear condition for use (run is waiting with AwaitingApproval and the client was not asked through elicitation) and points to await or status for locating waiting runs. It stops short of explicitly naming the decide sibling and when that alternative should be used instead.

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