Approve a knowledge suggestion

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing required scopes (knowledge:write, luca:queue_ops), the idempotency-key requirement and fallback, the mandatory confirm:true gate, and the downstream effect on later drafts. Minor tension: it advertises 'safe retries' via an idempotency key while idempotentHint=false, though the key mechanism explains this rather than strictly contradicting it.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and effect, then organizes metadata into scannable lines. Some redundancy: the confirm requirement is stated in both the description body and the schema, and the forced-confirm sentence is verbose, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth scopes, idempotency, the confirm gate, and workspace selection. It is largely complete for a destructive single-item mutation, though it doesn't say whether approval is reversible.

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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters (confirm, workspaceId/Slug, idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm and idempotency requirements and adds the workspace-override framing, but adds little genuine syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Approve a profile suggestion and write it into the coach's profile') and distinguishes itself from siblings like luca_knowledge_reject_suggestion and luca_knowledge_suggestions. The downstream consequence ('every later draft reads the result') further pins down what approval means.

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 a usage caution ('check the excerpt supports the change before approving'), which implies when to use it, but never explicitly names the alternative (luca_knowledge_reject_suggestion) or states when NOT to approve. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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