approvals_can_approve_instruction

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating permission check, which is useful, but it does not disclose the return value, error behavior for an invalid instructionId, or what 'can approve' depends on. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core capability. There is no filler, redundant wording, or irrelevant detail.

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 the tool's simplicity, a short description is appropriate, but the lack of an output schema and annotations leaves return semantics and side-effect behavior unstated. The agent must infer that this is a boolean-style permission check and that no approval occurs, which is reasonable but not fully explicit.

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 must compensate. The phrase 'the given Instruction' connects instructionId to an Instruction resource, but the description never names the parameter or explains where to find it or how an invalid ID is handled. The parameter is mostly understood from its self-explanatory name and integer type.

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 action ('check whether') and the resource ('the given Instruction'), so an agent can understand this is a capability check rather than an approval action. It is partially distinguished from siblings like approvals_approve_instruction and the scheduled/persistent variants by the word 'can' and 'Instruction', though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus approvals_approve_instruction, or when to use approvals_can_approve_scheduled_instruction / approvals_can_approve_persistent_instruction instead. The intended use as a pre-approval permission check is only implied by the word 'can', not stated explicitly.

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