pilot_approve

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action ('Approve a pending inbound handshake') and adds the delegation nuance, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. For a simple approval action, the core behavior is transparent, but additional behavioral context (e.g., what changes after approval) is missing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by a valuable usage exception. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward action, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage constraints, and the distinction from CLI-based approval. The sibling tool list further situates it. No critical context is missing.

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 includes a single 'target' parameter with a description ('Pending peer hostname, node_id, or address.'), covering 100% of the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve') tied to a clear resource ('pending inbound handshake'), and contrasts with the CLI alternative, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pilot_reject or pilot_handshake. The scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly provides both a positive condition ('only auto-call this tool when the user has explicitly delegated trust decisions') and a negative one ('Most handshakes are user-driven and should be approved via pilotctl approve directly'), naming the alternative. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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