repopilot_request_approval

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool 'records the request and may pause the run, but it never executes the requested action.' This adds critical behavioral context about side effects and limitations, which annotations do not convey. It also states the constraint of one action per request.

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 concise sentences with high information density. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage scenarios and a key behavioral clarification. No redundant or verbose wording.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, two enums, and a nested object, the description covers purpose, usage, and side effects. The schema covers parameter details. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for runId, action, details, and riskLevel. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no extra semantic value added.

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 a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('a human approval request'), and scope ('one high-risk action on a maintenance run'). It distinguishes from execution tools by explicitly stating 'it never executes the requested action', making it clear this is a request-creation tool, not an action executor like github_merge_pull_request.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use before merge, branch deletion, rollback, permission changes, secret changes, or another explicitly gated action.' It also implies non-usage for execution, and notes the side effect of possibly pausing the run. This is strong guidance for an agent to know when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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