approve_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral aspect (unlocks write_file for declared files), which is the most important side effect. However, it doesn't state whether approval is one-time or persistent, what happens on re-approval, or any error conditions (e.g., plan not found, already approved). For a state-changing workflow tool with no annotations, this is somewhat thin but captures the essential effect.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and effect, followed by the usage precondition. Zero filler; every phrase adds value.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter, workflow-gated tool with an output schema present, so complete documentation burden is low. The description tells the agent what it does, its side effect, and when to call it. It could note the relationship to pending-changes listing or rejection flow, but for a single-param approval action the coverage is adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate for plan_id, but it doesn't elaborate on what plan_id refers to (the plan identifier, presumably from propose_change or list_pending_changes). The single parameter is reasonably self-explanatory given the schema (a string ID), but the description could connect it to the sibling tools that generate/return such IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate for zero coverage with an obvious param name.

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+resource ('Aprova um plano previamente proposto') and clarifies the effect (liberating write_file for declared files). It distinguishes clearly from siblings like reject_change since it's the approval counterpart. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, though the context makes this obvious.

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 explicitly states when to call this ('Só chame isso depois de aprovação explícita do usuário na conversa'), providing a clear precondition and guardrail. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools explicitly, but the call condition is well-defined for a workflow-gated tool.

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