prepare_safe_tx_approve

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

Description reveals it returns an UnsignedTx that calls Safe.approveHash, consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true). Adds procedural detail beyond annotations, but could elaborate on idempotency or error cases.

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 focused sentences: purpose+condition, output+workflow, alternative. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description explains the tool's role, output type, and relationship to siblings. Could include more on prerequisites (like ensuring tx exists in queue), but sufficient for correct selection and use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions signer and safeTxHash in context but does not explicitly describe each parameter. Chain default is stated elsewhere but not in description. Adequate but not thorough.

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 adds an approveHash signature to an already queued Safe transaction. It uses specific verb 'Add', resource 'approveHash signature', and distinguishes from sibling tool prepare_safe_tx_propose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (tx already proposed elsewhere) and when not (use prepare_safe_tx_propose for new proposals). Also provides sequential workflow: broadcast via send_transaction then submit_safe_tx_signature.

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