approve_workflow_step_picks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: approving picks advances only the chosen assets. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, preconditions, or what happens to unapproved assets. The reference 'Same shape' is a useful shorthand but relies on knowledge of the sibling 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the distinguishing behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with two simple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core function and the key differentiator from the sibling. However, it omits details like what happens after approval, whether the action is reversible, and what the response contains. The 'same shape' reference is a shortcut that may not be self-contained for an agent.

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 only 50% (asset_ids lacks a description). The description adds context by equating 'picks' with 'chosen assets,' implying that asset_ids identifies which assets to approve. This provides some meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter format or clarify the exact relationship between id and asset_ids beyond the generic 'ID of the resource.'

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 clearly states the verb ('Approve') and resource ('a curated subset (picks) within a workflow step'), making the tool's function obvious. It also distinguishes it from the sibling tool by noting 'Same shape as approve_workflow_step but only the chosen assets advance,' which differentiates it from the full-approval variant.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool 'approve_workflow_step' and specifies the difference: 'only the chosen assets advance.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for a subset of assets) versus the sibling (for all assets), meeting the explicit alternative requirement.

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