queue_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool manages queued transactions for review, requires owner privileges for approve/cancel actions, and implies mutation capabilities (approve/cancel are destructive). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response formats, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage instructions and prerequisites in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects like privileges. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or pagination for the list action, which could be important for a tool with mutation capabilities.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the 'action' parameter (list for pending transactions, approve/cancel by ID) and clarifying that 'tx_id' is required for approve/cancel, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum and required fields.

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 tool's purpose: 'Manage over-limit transactions queued for owner review.' It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('over-limit transactions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_spend_limit or send_payment, which handle different aspects of transactions.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use action="list" to see pending transactions, "approve" to approve one by ID, or "cancel" to cancel one by ID.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Approve/cancel require the agent key to have owner privileges,' clearly indicating when and how to use each action.

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