Approval queue: list or reject queued API actions

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

Description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that writes are parked when approval mode is on, and clarifies the tool deliberately excludes approval to enforce human confirmation. Annotations already mark it idempotent and non-destructive, so the description enriches with queue semantics and CLI limitation.

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, with the second sentence clearly stating the agent's capabilities and limitation. The first sentence is somewhat awkward ('Writes park here') but still conveys relevant context about when the queue is used, earning its place without being verbose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the 'list' action returns, but it does not. It also fails to clarify whether 'reject' requires an id or how 'include_done' affects results. For a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is incomplete.

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 carries the burden for parameter meanings. It only mentions 'list' and 'reject' as action values, but does not explain 'id' or 'include_done' – when they are needed, their format, or their effects. This is a significant gap.

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?

Title clearly states 'list or reject queued API actions' and description confirms 'The agent can list and reject', providing a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes this tool from siblings which are about other domains (spend, publish, inbox, etc.).

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 that approving is CLI-only ('x-mcp approve <id> or x-mcp approve --all'), guiding the agent not to attempt approvals through this tool. It also explains when the queue is active ('when approval mode is on (the default) or when force was used'), giving clear context for use.

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