glm_5_reissue_approval

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool revokes the previous token (destructive), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loading the purpose. While brief, it contains no filler and earns its place. Could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, order of operations, return value, or the relationship between parameters. Leaves significant gaps.

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 description adds no parameter-level details. Parameters 'proposalId', 'approvalId', and 'reason' are unexplained in both schema and description. 'reason' has constraints (min/max length) but not described.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'reissue' with 'approval ID' and 'current proposal revision', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'revoke_approval' or 'list_pending_approvals'. It states the action and its effect.

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?

Implies usage when a fresh approval ID is needed while revoking the previous one, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Siblings like 'revoke_approval' are not mentioned as alternatives.

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