request_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key blocking behavior: 'The tool blocks until the human approves/denies or the timeout expires.' It also explains the return shape, though it does not mention timeout duration or any side effects of requesting 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?

The description is concise and well structured: purpose, usage guidance, and return value are each given in a short, focused block. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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 return value is described despite the lack of an output schema, which is helpful. However, the missing parameter semantics and unspecified timeout leave some practical details unaddressed for an agent deciding how to call the tool with proper arguments.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions a 'proposed action' in prose but never maps it to the action parameter, and it leaves details completely undefined, so an agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the human to approve or deny a proposed action.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling ask_human tool by focusing on approval/denial rather than general questioning, and explicitly notes it should be used before executing an 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?

It gives strong when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before any irreversible or high-stakes action' with concrete examples like deleting data, sending messages, and spending money. It does not explicitly contrast with ask_human, but the approval-specific wording makes the appropriate use case clear.

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