Approve or reject a persistent instruction by supplying its ID and a true/false decision. Add an optional comment to document the review. Works for API v26.2+.
Approve or reject a Persistent Instruction (API v26.2+). Requires 'Approve' on the Instruction Definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| approved | Yes | ||
| persistentInstructionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the required 'Approve' permission and the API version constraint. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or whether the persistent instruction must be pending approval, which limits transparency for a state-changing operation.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and then adds a concise permission/version constraint, making every word earn its place.
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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key prerequisite. However, it omits parameter explanations and does not describe the result or post-conditions of the approval, leaving the definition minimally viable but not fully 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%, and the description does not compensate. The boolean 'approved' is partially inferable from 'Approve or reject,' and persistentInstructionId is inferable from the tool name, but the optional 'comment' parameter is entirely undocumented. The description does not meaningfully clarify the parameter semantics.
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 states a specific action, 'Approve or reject a Persistent Instruction', making the tool's purpose clear and identifying the resource. It implicitly differentiates from sibling approval tools by naming Persistent Instruction and noting API v26.2+, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it narrowly misses a 5.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like approvals_approve_instruction or approvals_approve_scheduled_instruction. The permission note is a prerequisite, not a usage rule, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.