approve_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that processing runs in background, that the API returns 202 Accepted, and that completion should be checked via another endpoint. Minor gaps include no mention of idempotency or failure behavior.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list and return behavior are presented efficiently without redundant 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and a clear async workflow, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what each parameter means, what the response is, and how to follow up. No critical information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: campaign_id identifies the target, script is optional with fallback to the AI-generated script, and action defines the two possible behaviors with its default value.

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 main action ('Aprova (ou edita) o roteiro de uma campanha') and the follow-up effect ('dispara a produção de áudio'), making the tool's purpose specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_campaign and get_campaign_status.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, explains the difference between 'approve' and 'regenerate', and explicitly directs the agent to use get_campaign_status afterward. It does not mention exclusions, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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