Record Application Consent

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: append-only audit semantics, the explicit caveat that the server cannot verify user attribution, that 'approved' reserves a daily-cap slot, and that 'rejected' is posting-scoped and terminal. This is exactly the kind of mutation/irreversibility detail the destructiveHint alone does not convey.

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?

Dense but every clause carries a rule the agent needs (acceptance preconditions, terminality, slot reservation). Front-loaded with the core purpose before the conditional detail. Slightly long for a single paragraph but no filler.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail on preconditions, the description supplies the acceptance rules, attribution caveat, and terminality needed to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of failure behavior when the preconditions are unmet.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does: it explains channel ('where the user said it'), note ('their words'), and the semantics and acceptance constraints of each action. proposal_id is left implicit, and the treatment of 'auto' as a channel value rather than an action is slightly ambiguous against the schema enum.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Record the user's explicit approve/reject decision for this proposal as an append-only audit row') and defines the scope clearly. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling record_decision, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives detailed conditions governing each action ('approved' requires final_review evidence, no prior application, a free daily-cap slot; 'rejected' is terminal; 'auto' only for approved under full automation). It stops short of naming when to prefer this over record_decision or request_decision, so it is context-rich but not alternative-aware.

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