approvals_approve_instruction

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses authorization requirements and the self-approval restriction, which are important operational constraints. However, it doesn't state what approving/rejecting does to the instruction state, whether the action is reversible, or any response/error behavior.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second lists the two key constraints. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation. The description omits side effects, return value, and routing to related approval tools, leaving an agent without enough context to predict the outcome of a successful approve/reject call.

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 only 33%: only 'approved' is documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to explain 'comment' or 'instructionId'; it also doesn't note whether comment is expected when rejecting. Since coverage is below the compensation threshold, this is a real gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve or reject') and names the resource ('an Instruction'), and the boolean parameter confirms the dual action. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling approvals_approve_scheduled_instruction and approvals_approve_persistent_instruction, though the plain 'Instruction' wording implies the base/non-scheduled/non-persistent variant.

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?

Gives two concrete constraints that guide call eligibility: self-approval is forbidden and the caller needs 'Approve' permission on the Instruction Definition. It does not state when to choose this tool over the scheduled/persistent approval siblings or suggest checking approvals_can_approve_instruction first, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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