Decide governed action

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which the description reinforces by stating this is a 'WRITE role' action. The description adds critical behavioral info: the need for humanConfirmed=true and iGrid's downstream authorization authority, which goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 concise sentences that front-load the key message ('WRITE role') and critical constraint. Every sentence adds value, but some parameter details are missing, and the description could be slightly more 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?

Given 5 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description covers the core governance constraint but omits important details: what 'note' is used for, how 'selectedIds' relates to the action, and what the tool returns upon success or failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'humanConfirmed' (requires true) and implies intent for 'decision' (approve/reject). However, it does not explain other parameters like 'note', 'request', or 'selectedIds', leaving gaps.

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 specific verbs ('approve or reject') and identifies the resource ('previously proposed action'). It distinguishes from siblings like igrid_propose_action by focusing on the decision step.

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 explicitly warns that 'humanConfirmed=true' is required and mentions downstream authorization by iGrid, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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