tea_pr_approve

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

There are no annotations provided, leaving the description to carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether approval is recorded, whether it affects merge permissions, whether it is reversible, or what happens to existing approvals). This is insufficient for a state-changing 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core action.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too terse for a mutation tool. It omits important context such as the effect of approval on the pull request workflow, whether a comment is expected, and how the approval relates to merging or rejecting.

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?

The input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, but the schema is sufficient.

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 ('Approve') with a clear resource ('a pull request'), which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tea_pr_reject and tea_pr_merge. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell whether approval should precede a merge or how it differs from rejection or commenting.

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