approve_ash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits a transaction and waits for on-chain confirmation, which reveals side-effecting and blocking behavior. It does not mention gas costs, failure modes, or reversibility, but the core transactional nature is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, with the key action and resource in the first sentence and usage context plus block behavior in the second. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 what the tool does, when it is needed, and that it waits for confirmation. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of confirmation partially addresses the outcome. It could note what is returned (e.g., transaction hash) but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 schema description already fully explains the quantity parameter: 'Number of tokens to approve spend for (1–5). Approves quantity × 100,000 ASH.' Since the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and coverage is 100%, 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 first sentence states a specific verb ('approves') and resource ('the Ashfields contract to spend $ASH tokens from the configured wallet'). It also contextualizes the action as a prerequisite for minting, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mint_ashfield.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Required before minting if the current allowance is insufficient.' This gives a clear condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or the when-not case (e.g., 'if allowance is sufficient, skip approval'), so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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