bernstein_approve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool refuses non-pending_approval statuses, completes the task on the server, and makes network requests. This gives a clear state-change and safety profile, though it does not mention reversibility or error handling specifics, which might be covered by the output 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 two sentences plus a brief 'Host effects' note. It is front-loaded with the core condition and action, contains no filler, and every clause earns its place. This is an exemplar of concise, structured writing.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, the precondition, and the side effects. Since an output schema exists, return values are likely documented elsewhere. Missing details include the role of the note parameter and the relationship to bernstein_complete, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for a simple approval action.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It only vaguely refers to 'task' without explaining task_id or note. The note parameter's purpose (e.g., an approval message) is entirely unexplained, and the condition 'pending_approval' does not clarify parameter semantics enough. This is a clear gap.

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 the tool's specific function: 'Sign off a finished result' only when the task is in pending_approval, and that it 'completes the task.' The explicit status condition ('every other status is refused') adds scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bernstein_complete, which may have different completion semantics.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: only when the task is in pending_approval. It explicitly states that any other status is refused, signaling when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., bernstein_complete) or explain the exact workflow relationship, leaving some ambiguity.

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