approve_fields

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: that section paths like 'apps.main.cloud' approve everything beneath them (scope expansion) and that approval must be user-sanctioned. It omits what 'approved' actually changes downstream.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the pattern semantics and the safety caveat. The examples earn their space, though the pattern and section sentences could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a non-destructive mutation, the description covers purpose, scope behavior, and the user-consent prerequisite. It leaves the effect of approval and its relation to sibling tools implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains pattern syntax for the path argument ('achievements.*.name', section paths) but never clarifies the 'fields' array or maps the examples to a specific parameter, leaving half the contract unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Mark values as approved by the user.' This is clearer than the bare name and conveys the approval semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like set_field or mark_applied, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('after showing them') and an explicit when-not constraint ('Never approve without the user's agreement'). It does not name alternative tools for adjacent cases, so it is not a full 5.

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