approve-scripts

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a policy-only change (nothing executes), approvals are pinned to installed versions, and npm 12+ is required. The main omission is whether approvals persist across reinstalls/lockfile changes.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial 'does not run scripts' clarification. Every sentence carries weight, though the npm 12+ requirement could be folded more tightly.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations beyond the destructive flag, the description covers effect and prerequisites reasonably well but leaves the meaning of 'path' and the response behavior unexplained, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: the required 'path' parameter is never mentioned, and 'packages' is only hinted at ('pinned by npm to installed versions') with no reference to the name format or the 1-100 item limit.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Approve reviewed dependency install scripts', with a precise qualifier that approval is pinned to installed versions. It does not name the sibling tools (pending-scripts, deny-scripts) but the action is unambiguous in this namespace.

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?

'Only changes policy; does not run scripts' and 'Never approve packages without reviewing them' give a clear workflow prerequisite (review first) and set expectations about the effect. However, it never points to pending-scripts or deny-scripts as the alternatives that satisfy 'reviewing', so the routing is left implicit.

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