ecg_approve_consent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates what each grant value authorizes (one commit, session storage, audit-only, storage off) and notes that unrecognized strings are recorded but do not authorize storage. It does not cover authorization requirements, idempotency, or error behavior, which leaves some gaps for a mutation/audit 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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact, flat list of grant semantics; every line adds information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 consent checkpoint with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the decision values and their consequences thoroughly. What remains unaddressed is the meaning/source of session_id and the shape of the result, though the latter is less critical here.

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 grant is a bare string with no enum, so the description's enumeration of the four valid values plus the fallback behavior is essential and well done. However, session_id — the other required parameter — receives no explanation of origin or format anywhere, so the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Record the user's consent decision") and frames the call as "the consent checkpoint," which clearly separates it from commit/proposal siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from semantics rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit prohibition: "Do not send approve_run or approve_session on your own," plus the precondition that the value must be the user's choice from the approval dialog. What's missing is a pointer to the alternative tool when consent isn't yet appropriate (e.g., ecg_get_session).

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