approve_decision

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

The description adds 'Mutates the decision store; idempotent (re-approving an already-approved row is a no-op)' and specifies the return JSON format. The annotations already cover non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent hints, so the description complements rather than repeats them.

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?

Three sentences: first explains the action, second clarifies mutation and idempotency, third provides a pairing hint and return structure. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple, the description covers the action, effect, idempotency, return format, and sibling relationship. No output schema exists, so the return format info is valuable and complete.

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% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that it is the decision ID to approve, which is adequate.

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 verb 'Approve', the resource 'decision', and the specific context 'review_status=pending'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'reject_decision', making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly says 'Pair with reject_decision to clear out the review queue', providing clear context for when to use this tool versus its sibling. It also notes idempotent behavior but does not explicitly state when not to use it, which is acceptable given the simple operation.

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