cognition_approve_injection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon each decision. For a mutation tool, this omission is significant.

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 very concise (one sentence, 7 words). It front-loads the key actions but omits necessary detail; however, it avoids jargon or redundancy. It earns its place but could expand slightly without losing efficiency.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on when a proposal is 'pending', success/failure responses, and parameter semantics. It barely meets the minimum for an agent to safely invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the three decision values (mapping to the enum) but does not explain the 'proposalId' parameter—its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the enum options.

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 action with precise verbs (approve, reject, override) and specifies the resource (pending injection proposal). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which handle injection approvals.

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, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description simply states the action without contextual boundaries.

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