Approve Change Request

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

The description discloses the specific mutation (sets approval field to 'approved') and emphasizes that it changes the approval status. This adds useful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them. It could also mention idempotent behavior, but the annotation covers that.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action, object, and effect are front-loaded, and the 'IMPORTANT' warning adds emphasis without redundancy.

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?

For a simple write operation with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and safety warning. It does not explain behavior for already-approved requests or error conditions, but the idempotent annotation and general simplicity make this adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter (sys_id, comments, instance) is already well-documented. The description adds no new meaning beyond reiterating 'optional comments', which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve'), identifies the resource ('change request'), and states the exact effect ('Sets the approval field to approved'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_incident or resolve_incident.

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 implies the tool is used to approve change requests, and the context makes it the only tool for that purpose among siblings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but no conflicting tool exists, so the guidance is adequate.

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