Check if the current user has permission to approve a specific Persistent Instruction by ID, enabling approval workflow validation.
Check whether the calling user can approve the given Persistent Instruction (API v26.2+).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Persistent Instruction ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check whether' implies a non-mutating read-style operation, and the API version note is a useful constraint. However, it does not explicitly state return values, side-effect absence, or required authorization context, leaving some behavior implicit.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The API version note is a small but useful addition. It could be slightly more informative while still staying concise, but it is well-structured 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?
This is a simple one-parameter check tool with no output schema, so the description is fairly complete for basic invocation. It correctly identifies the resource type and version constraint. It could improve by explicitly noting the return type (e.g., boolean indicating approval permission), but the current description is adequate for a low-complexity tool.
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 100% and the only parameter 'id' already has a description ('Persistent Instruction ID'). The description adds nothing beyond 'given Persistent Instruction' to clarify the parameter's meaning or expected format. This matches the baseline for fully schema-covered parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and a clear resource ('the calling user can approve the given Persistent Instruction'), which distinguishes it from the sibling approvals_can_approve_instruction and approvals_approve_persistent_instruction. The API version note adds useful precision. It is clear this is a permission check, not an approval action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like approvals_approve_persistent_instruction or approvals_can_approve_instruction. The tool name implies the use case, but the description itself does not state when to choose it or when not to. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.