approve_prompt

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states approval and return value. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., state mutation), idempotency, or required permissions. The behavioral scope is vague.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, but it is not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format, but it only vaguely says 'final optimized prompt'. It does not explain the structure (e.g., string, object) or the prompt's content. This is insufficient for a tool that completes an optimization workflow.

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 already provides a description for session_id ('Session ID from optimize_prompt'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool approves a compiled prompt and returns it ready for use, specifying the action and the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'optimize_prompt' or 'refine_prompt', leaving some ambiguity about what 'compiled' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must follow optimize_prompt) or when not to use it. The description alone provides no context for selection.

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