approve_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait: the response excludes history, directing to get_task for that. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the task state changes irreversibly), required permissions, or idempotency. Some context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add a useful behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides some essential context (caller, timing, return format limitation) but omits details on parameter semantics for half the parameters and the state transition side effects. It is adequate but not 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies 'by' as the creator/reviewer and suggests 'id' refers to the task, but it does not explain 'note' or 'expected_version'. The compensation is partial and insufficient for four parameters.

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') and resource ('a completed task'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_task or request_revision. It also adds context on the typical caller (creator/reviewer) and contrasts with get_task regarding history.

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 ('after checking the implementer's work') and mentions an alternative for a specific need ('call get_task for that' regarding history). It lacks explicit exclusions or a direct comparison to all siblings, but the guidance is helpful.

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