Request TOCA Approval

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

Annotations already convey the broad safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds useful binding context about the payload and authenticated requester. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or response behavior, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes. It is concise but perhaps too terse given the schema's complete lack of parameter descriptions.

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 creation/request tool with five required parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, so a one-sentence purpose statement is insufficient. It lacks usage conditions, parameter detail, and return or side-effect information, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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% across five required parameters, and the description names none of them. The phrase 'exact typed execution payload' gestures at one parameter but leaves capabilityId, correlationId, expiresAt, and evidence entirely unexplained.

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 the specific verb 'Create' with a concrete resource, 'formal ApprovalRecord,' and adds scoping constraints ('exact typed execution payload,' 'authenticated requester'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling retrieval tools like toca.approval.get.

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?

There is no guidance on when to request an approval versus using sibling tools such as toca.workflow.create, toca.execute, or toca.verify. The description implies a creation workflow but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit usage context.

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