execute_approved_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'execute' and 'confirmed' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like the nature of side effects, authentication needs, or what 'standard write' entails. Minimal added value beyond 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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core action and prerequisite. However, it could be improved by adding parameter guidance without becoming verbose.

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 nested objects, required parameters, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship between 'approval' and the preview process, or how 'confirm' affects execution. The context is underdeveloped for a complex write operation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain the 'approval' object or 'confirm' boolean. Required approval field is entirely unspecified, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct the input.

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 states 'Execute a previously previewed and confirmed standard write,' which clearly indicates the tool performs a write operation after preview and confirmation. It differentiates from siblings like preview_write and validate_write, though 'standard write' is somewhat vague.

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 implies that a preview and confirmation must have occurred beforehand, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings or provide conditions or prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use it.

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