approve_credit_check_orderApproves a pending credit check order by submitting its order payload, typically with RequestId and Comment, so marketplace credit checks can proceed.
WRITE: ApproveCreditCheckOrder. Pass the order object (typically from list_credit_check_orders_for_approval), usually including RequestId and Comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Credit check order payload to approve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the 'WRITE' marker is largely redundant. The description earns credit elsewhere: it discloses the actual payload shape (RequestId, Comment) for an opaque free-form object, which the annotations cannot convey.
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 short sentences, mutation intent front-loaded, payload guidance second. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.
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?
For a mutation tool with a fully open nested payload and no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics but omits what success looks like, whether approval is reversible, and any permission or state prerequisites. Adequate to invoke, thin on consequences.
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 reads as 100%, but the schema only describes 'order' as an unconstrained object with additionalProperties, so the structured data provides almost no field-level meaning. The description partially compensates by naming RequestId and Comment, but hedges with 'usually' and leaves the rest of the payload undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('ApproveCreditCheckOrder') and prefixes with 'WRITE', so an agent immediately knows this is the mutating counterpart to list_credit_check_orders_for_approval and decline_credit_check_order. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 parenthetical 'typically from list_credit_check_orders_for_approval' gives a usable workflow hint about where the payload comes from. However it never says when to choose this over decline_credit_check_order, nor what precondition (pending approval state) must hold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.