tokportal_approve_comment_task

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly/destructive hints), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation is mutative ('Approves and finalizes') and discloses a blocking condition and recovery path. It also hints at idempotency via the idempotency_key parameter. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the last sentence adds a condition. The second sentence is somewhat redundant ('Approves and finalizes an owned manually_confirmed task'), but overall it is efficient with no extraneous 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers: the operation, preconditions (manually confirmed, owned), a blocking condition, and recovery suggestion. It does not describe the return value or error states, but for a straightforward approval action, it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little meaning beyond what is already in the schema for both parameters. The description references the id parameter indirectly ('owned manually_confirmed task') but does not elaborate on formats or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies it finalizes an owned manually_confirmed task. This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling operations like dispute or delete by emphasizing the 'approved' and 'finalized' nature.

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 context on when to use the tool: only for 'owned manually_confirmed' tasks and notes a blocking condition (TokPortal Coverage inactive) with a suggested recovery action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tokportal_dispute_comment_task or tokportal_delete_comment_task, leaving the agent without clear guidance on alternatives.

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