approve

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that approval does not automatically execute next steps on this server; instead, it marks them as 'not_executed' and returns outcome='dispatch_required' with a 'pending_dispatch' list. This is critical behavioral context not implied by readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, usage guidance, args, note, and returns section. Every sentence adds value, especially the dispatcher note which is essential for correct agent behavior. No 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?

The tool mutates workflow state and has no output schema; the description covers prerequisites, side effects, return value, and the special dispatch requirement. It references run_workflow for further context, making it complete for an agent to use 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 lacks parameter descriptions, but the description compensates fully by explaining workflow_id as 'The workflow ID to approve' and approver as 'Name of the person approving (for audit trail)', adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 a workflow that is waiting for human confirmation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning cancel_workflow for rejections and the awaiting_approval state requirement.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Use this only after showing the user the pending step and getting explicit human consent' and directs to cancel_workflow when approval is rejected. Also specifies the precondition that the workflow must be in 'awaiting_approval' state.

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