resolve_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the mutation (approve/reject) and a return shape, but does not explain permissions, consequences of approving or rejecting, reversibility, or what happens to the underlying task or approval.

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 first sentence states the action, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. No filler, every line serves a purpose.

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 two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the operation and return contract. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it omits prerequisites and usage context that an agent would need to select 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 full parameter documentation. It explains both parameters clearly: approval_id identifies the approval, and approved is a boolean where True approves and False rejects.

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?

States a specific verb (approve/reject) and resource (pending approval request), so the action is clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like request_task_approval or list_pending_approvals, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Mentions 'pending approval request' as the object, implying use after an approval is requested, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites such as obtaining an approval_id from list_pending_approvals.

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