openclaw_exec_approval_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions mutation and that the agent will proceed or not, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, error conditions, or side effects on other approvals. The internal function name is a plus.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: action description, underlying function, and behavioral consequence. Front-loaded and efficient with no 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage (e.g., approved vs decision), doesn't provide workflow context linking to sibling tools like openclaw_exec_approval_list, and doesn't describe return values or errors.

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 only 40% (id and instance have descriptions). The tool description does not clarify the purpose or relationship of 'reason', 'approved', or 'decision' parameters. The agent is left without guidance on whether to use 'approved' or 'decision', or what 'reason' is for.

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 resolves pending exec approvals (approve/reject), specifies it wraps an internal function, and indicates it mutates state. It differentiates from sibling tools like list, get, request, and waitDecision by focusing on the action of making a decision.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., openclaw_exec_approval_list to find pending approvals, openclaw_exec_approval_get to inspect one). Does not explain that the tool should be used after retrieving an approval id, nor does it caution about prerequisites or side effects.

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