wafle_agents_runs_approve

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

The description explains key behavioral effects: it resumes execution from the pending tool call and saves an optional note to the audit log. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying the mechanism and side effects, though it could further note irreversibility or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concise effect statement. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 straightforward approval action, the description covers the key aspects: target state, what happens next, and the audit note feature. It does not explain the return value or behavior when the run is not awaiting approval, but these are less critical given the simplicity and existing annotations.

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?

Only one of three parameters (slug) has a schema description, so overall schema coverage is low. The description adds meaning to the 'note' parameter (saved to audit log) and clarifies the run's state, but 'run_id' remains minimally elaborated beyond its obvious role.

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: approve a run that is awaiting approval and resumes execution. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wafle_agents_runs_reject by focusing on approval and resumption, not rejection.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: for runs in the 'awaiting_approval' state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context of approval vs. rejection is evident from the sibling tool names.

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