approve_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects and side effects. It does not mention what changes approving a merge makes, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the output indicates. 'Delegating to PipelineService' is an implementation detail, not behavioral information.

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 brief, but brevity is not the same as conciseness here because almost all useful substance is absent. The phrase 'by delegating to PipelineService' adds no practically useful information and reads as filler rather than an earned sentence.

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 tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. Even with an output schema present, the agent cannot determine what action is actually performed on the referenced plan or story, when it should be invoked, or what the result means.

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 the description does not compensate. It does not explain how plan_name and story_key are used, why both are required, or what valid values look like. The meaning of these parameters is entirely unspecified.

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 phrase 'Approve a merge' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'approve_merge', with the only additional detail being the implementation note 'by delegating to PipelineService'. It does not define what a merge is in this domain or differentiate the action from related pipeline or plan operations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as advance_pipeline, review_story, or set_story_status. There are no preconditions, timing cues, or alternative routing hints.

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