resolve_mcp_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required action values and the session_key fallback, but it does not state what happens after resolution (e.g., irreversible side effects, whether the underlying MCP request proceeds) or what permissions beyond the session key are needed. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by concise per-parameter notes. Every sentence adds value, and the exactly-one-of constraint is stated in a single unambiguous phrase.

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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, constraints, and defaults. However, it does not describe the return value, error cases, or how to obtain the approval_id, leaving minor gaps for a state-changing operation.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the description fully compensates by explaining the action enum, defining token and approval_id, enforcing the exactly-one-of relationship, and documenting the session_key default. This is precisely the parameter-level detail an agent needs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly identifies the resource ('a pending MCP human-in-the-loop (HITL) transaction') with an explicit parenthetical defining approve/reject. This directly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pending_requests or submit_decision by focusing on the resolution action.

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 clear operational guidance: the action must be 'approve' or 'reject', exactly one of approval_id or token is required, and session_key defaults to COLBA_TOKEN. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions compared to related tools, but the intended use is strongly implied.

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