approve_decision

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool mutates the store, is idempotent (matching idempotentHint), and specifies the return JSON structure. Annotations already indicate idempotency, so the description reinforces it and adds return format.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, mutation details, and pairing advice with return format. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: state change, idempotency, return format, and sibling relationship. Annotations provide safety context, and the description complements them fully.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: approving a decision with pending review_status, and specifies the state change to approved. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reject_decision and add_decision.

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 explicitly advises pairing with reject_decision to clear the review queue, and implies when to use (for pending decisions) and when not (already approved). It names a sibling alternative.

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