Create an approval

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, notifications, or state changes beyond schema and annotations.

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 concise with two sentences, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the title and adds a technical line, but it could include more useful context without becoming verbose. The brevity sacrifices informativeness.

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 complexity of the tool (enumerated types, nested objects, output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the types of approvals, their typical use cases, or the response format. The annotations and schema only partially cover the required context.

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 0%. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as the meaning of each approval type (e.g., hire_agent), the payload structure, or the purpose of issueIds. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 'Create an approval' with a specific verb and resource. It also includes the HTTP method and path, indicating it's a company-level operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_post_issues_by_id_approvals or pc_post_approvals_by_id_approve, which operate on different contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer company-level approval creation over issue-level, or when to use approval actions like approving or rejecting.

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