request_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the exact return format, the possibility of the plan being edited, and the critical instruction to execute the returned plan. This goes beyond the schema and provides essential behavioral insights.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavior, return value, and parameter explanations. Every sentence provides value, with no tautology or fluff. The formatting with paragraphs and an Args list enhances readability without being overly 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, blocking behavior, return format, and parameter semantics, which is comprehensive for a two-parameter tool. It lacks explicit error scenarios or timeout handling, but the output schema (as described in the return format) and parameter hints are sufficient for correct usage.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does. It explains 'plan' as 'Plan JSON with graph_id, nodes[] and edges[] (must be a DAG)' and 'summary' as 'One-line description shown in the editor header'. This adds meaning, though the inner structure of nodes/edges is not detailed, leaving some room for improvement.

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 with a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('a task execution plan for human review in the AgentTakt editor'). It unambiguously identifies what the tool does, making its function distinct even in the absence of sibling tools.

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 provides clear context by noting that the tool blocks until human approval/rejection and instructs to 'always execute the returned plan'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no sibling tools, this is acceptable and gives practical usage direction.

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