tokportal_approve_comment_task

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

Annotations provide only generic safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds critical behavioral details: the task is finalized, ownership is required ('owned'), and execution is blocked if coverage is inactive. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of side effects and dependencies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long, with the core purpose upfront and the critical execution condition second. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions (manual confirmation, ownership, coverage active) and the effect (approve and finalize). It could be slightly more explicit about what 'finalize' means in terms of consequences, but overall it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (id: 'Comment task ID', idempotency_key: 'Optional Idempotency-Key header for safe retries'). The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the id must refer to an owned, manually confirmed task, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 manually confirmed comment task' and elaborates with 'Approves and finalizes an owned manually_confirmed task.' It specifies the verb (approve), the resource (comment task), and the required state (manually confirmed, owned), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dispute, delete, or create.

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 provides important usage context by stating a precondition: 'Execution is blocked while TokPortal Coverage is inactive; inspect MANAGED_ACCOUNT_TASK_BLOCKED and reactivate a recoverable account first.' This tells the agent when the tool cannot be used and how to recover. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like dispute_comment_task or delete_comment_task.

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