passgage_update_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation operation but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, validation behavior, or whether the update is partial or replaces the entire object. The open-ended 'data' parameter adds to the uncertainty.

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 a single short sentence, 'Update an existing approval', which is extremely concise and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 has an open-ended 'data' object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what fields are accepted, whether the update is partial, what the response looks like, or how it differs from approval-specific tools. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both 'id' and 'data', so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the 'data' parameter is described vaguely as 'The data for updating the approval' with additionalProperties allowed, leaving its structure highly ambiguous. The tool description does not compensate for this.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing approval'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'passgage_approve_request', which might also modify approval state, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_request or bulk_approve. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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