approve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that setting approved=False rejects the action and that the tool works across sessions/devices. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid approval_key), or idempotency, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second adds cross-session capability. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 sibling tools and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers core functionality and cross-session behavior. It does not specify how to obtain approval_key or what 'pending' means, but these can be inferred from context. Reasonably complete for a simple tool.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides meaning for approved (set false to reject) but does not explain approval_key format or the comment parameter. It partially compensates but lacks full detail.

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: 'Approve (or reject) a pending agent action to resume the durable run.' It uses specific verbs (approve/reject) and identifies the resource (pending agent action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_status, run_goal, and schedule_goal.

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 explains when to use the tool (to approve/reject a pending action) and notes it works across sessions/devices. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select it over siblings.

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