Decide proposal

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses dry-run behavior (settled_dry_run receipt, fake lsrq_dry_… settlement ref), budget decrement, that reject spends nothing and writes no receipt, and that live charging is gated. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and they explain exactly what the mutation destroys or creates.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the human-confirmation framing, then descending into dry-run mechanics and idempotency. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the effect story — and it does, describing receipt creation, settlement ref format, budget impact, and repeat-call behavior. For a destructive, non-open-world mutation with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the enum text by spelling out the side effects of each decision value (approve settles, rejects spends nothing, writes no receipt). It does not explain note or proposal_id handling, so it does not fully compensate into a 5.

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?

States a specific verb pair (approve/reject) on a specific resource (one pending proposal) and scopes it to exactly one item. This clearly separates it from propose_purchase (creates) and list_proposals (reads), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

"This is the step a human should confirm" gives a clear use condition, and the approve/reject branch guidance tells the agent which input to pick for which outcome. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., refund_receipt for unwinding, deliver_receipt style flows), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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