prepare_safe_tx_approve

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

Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context: it returns an UnsignedTx, requires the transaction to already be proposed elsewhere, and outlines next steps. It does not contradict annotations, and provides additional behavioral detail beyond what annotations offer.

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, no redundant information. First sentence states purpose and prerequisite, second explains return and workflow, third gives alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context: returns UnsignedTx, requires tx already queued, and explains next steps. It lacks error conditions or owner requirements, but given annotations (destructive, idempotent) and clear workflow, it is reasonably 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 should compensate. It does not explicitly describe each parameter, but parameter names (signer, safeAddress, chain, safeTxHash) are self-explanatory given the tool purpose. The chain enum is clear. However, explicit clarification of required format or constraints is missing.

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 a Safe transaction already in the queue. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `prepare_safe_tx_propose` by specifying when to use that instead. The verb 'add' and resource 'approveHash' are specific.

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 says when to use this tool (for existing queued transactions) and when not to (use `prepare_safe_tx_propose` for new proposals). It also provides a clear workflow: broadcast via `send_transaction`, then call `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.