人工审批决策

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

Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the mutating effect (approve/reject and save note) and a downstream consequence (tasks cannot be generated before approval), but does not say whether a review can be changed or what happens after rejection.

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?

Two short sentences with the action stated first and a useful prerequisite/context note added. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no output schema and no useful annotations, yet the description does not state what the caller receives or whether approval immediately creates the task. The required parameters are clear from the schema, but downstream behavior is only partially covered.

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%, and the description only partially compensates: it maps reviewer to 明确的审核人, note to 审核说明, status to 批准或拒绝, and decision_id to 决策提案. It does not explain format or constraints, but the terms are enough to infer each parameter's purpose.

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?

Description names a clear action (approve or reject) on a specific resource (a decision proposal) and mentions saving a review note. It is distinguishable from decision_create, which would create a decision, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 sentence '需要人工审批的提案未批准前不能生成任务' provides context for when a review matters, implying this tool is for proposals requiring manual approval. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like decision_list or review_run.

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