request_approval

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 mandatory field verification, unique token generation, multi-use token behavior, per-action consumption limits, and deletion after all allowed actions. This is substantial behavioral context beyond schema.

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 divided into three compact paragraphs, each adding distinct value: purpose, validation, and token lifecycle. No redundant or irrelevant sentences are present.

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 high parameter count, nested objects, and availability of an output schema, the description covers the core token contract, validation requirements, and usage constraints. It lacks details on rejection responses and error conditions, but is still substantially complete for primary use.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description explains the semantics of 'approved' and mentions the mandatory fields summary, unified_diff, checks, and branch_plan. However, it does not explain pr_draft, pr_title, pr_body, issue_url, or notes, which are also in the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but misses several parameters.

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 'Record the approval decision' and identifies the output 'approval token if approved'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling repo/GitHub tools by focusing on the approval workflow and token generation.

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 the approval token must be provided to side-effect tools (e.g., push, open_pr), establishing when to use this tool as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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