task_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state transitions (approve → completed and releases dependents; reject → back to running for redo), records the approver, and explicitly notes that it rejects a non-awaiting task. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention error details or whether the operation is idempotent.

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, front-loaded with the phrase 'DAG acceptance gate' which immediately orients the agent. It uses compact parentheticals for outcomes and includes the edge-case behavior in the second sentence. Zero filler, every word earns its place.

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 core flow and the reject condition, which is the heart of the operation. However, it leaves `note` and `attempt_id` semantics undefined, and does not mention what the response looks like or any potential side effects beyond releasing dependents. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, state transitions), this is adequate but not complete.

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 explain parameters. It explains `decision` (approve/reject) and `approver` (recorded), and `task_id` is self-evident from context. However, `note` and `attempt_id` are not explained at all, leaving their purpose and format ambiguous. The description adds value for two key params but fails to cover two others.

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 purpose: it is a DAG acceptance gate that acts on tasks in `awaiting_approval` state, with two decision outcomes (approve→completed, reject→back to running). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact state and the binary decision, making it unambiguous.

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 the precondition (task must be in `awaiting_approval`) and the behavior when that precondition is not met ('Rejects a non-awaiting task'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like `task_decide` or `task_complete`, leaving some routing to inference. The condition is clear but exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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