vaibot_approve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical irreversible consequence: 'deny permanently blocks the action.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral trait agents need to know. It could be more detailed about permissions or error handling, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. The second sentence elaborates on parameters and behavioral effects without unnecessary fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and consequences. It could explicitly state prerequisites like governance admin permission or that the action must be pending, but these are largely implied. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: it explains what the action enum value does ('allows the blocked action to proceed' vs 'permanently blocks it'). It also reinforces the provenance of content_hash. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 function: approve or deny a pending governance action. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like vaibot_decide, vaibot_receipts, and vaibot_finalize, which handle other parts of the workflow.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use the tool: source content_hash from vaibot_decide or vaibot_receipts, and explains the two possible actions. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or how it relates to vaibot_finalize, so it stops short of full guidance.

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