Review an execution asset

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds transparency by specifying that approval 'never executes the asset externally,' providing important behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, directly states purpose and a key constraint, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 provides core purpose and a behavioral constraint, but lacks explanation of parameters and return values. With 4 parameters and no output schema, additional detail would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain what runId or assetId refer to, nor does it describe the allowed decision values beyond naming the enum. The optional reason parameter is not mentioned.

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 records approve, revise, or reject decisions for a generated Solodot asset, and emphasizes that approval is only acceptance, not external execution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_execution_asset or export_solodot_run.

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 implies when to use the tool (to review an asset) and clarifies a key constraint (no external execution), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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