tokportal_approve_comment_task

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is blocked while TokPortal Coverage is inactive, with a specific error code and remediation step. It also clarifies the finalization behavior, which annotations don't convey.

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 sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a key prerequisite in the second. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

The description covers purpose, a critical blocking condition, and an error code. It doesn't mention the success response or return value, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it's sufficient for a simple approval 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the baseline for full schema coverage.

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') and the resource ('comment task'), with specific scope ('owned manually_confirmed task') and finalization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, dispute, get, and list.

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 gives clear context: only for owned manually_confirmed tasks, and warns that execution is blocked when coverage is inactive. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the state and ownership constraints effectively exclude other scenarios.

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