Approve Workflow Run

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

The description states that rejecting 'discards the run', which is a destructive action, but the annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the annotations, severely undermining trust and transparency.

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 front-loaded: two sentences cover purpose, context, effects, and return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, effects of both decisions, and what is returned. It does not explain behavior when the run is not in 'waiting_for_review' state, but given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of a clear output snapshot mention, it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, with clear descriptions for run_id, decision, and note. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mostly repeating the same information, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Approve or reject') and resource ('a run'). It also distinguishes this from siblings by mentioning the 'human-in-the-loop gate' and the specific state 'waiting_for_review', setting it apart from view/run workflow tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a run is in 'waiting_for_review' state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among workflow-related siblings.

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