freeagent_mark_estimate_as_approved

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether approval is reversible, what statuses permit approval, or what state the estimate ends in, which is the kind of context that matters for a state-transition tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true clarity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain state preconditions and effects, and it does neither. The only structured support is the annotation safety profile, leaving meaningful gaps about what the approval actually does.

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?

There is a single required parameter (estimate_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning and pattern. The description adds no extra semantics such as where the ID comes from or acceptable formats, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Mark an estimate as approved') in the FreeAgent domain, so the agent knows exactly which state transition is performed. It stops short of distinguishing this from the closely named sibling freeagent_mark_estimate_as_sent, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of preconditions (e.g., the estimate must exist and be in a prior status), and no reference to alternatives such as freeagent_mark_estimate_as_sent or freeagent_update_estimate. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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