dsh_approval_decide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a consequential privilege-escalation gate whose outcome is 'allow' or 'deny' and that neither default is applied automatically, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about what happens to the underlying request after the decision, whether a decision is final/idempotent, or what occurs if approval_id is stale or already resolved.

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: the operation and its trigger condition first, then the rationale. Nothing is padded and the actionable constraint is front-loaded.

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 call shape is small and fully documented in the schema, and the description covers what the tool is for. For a decision tool with no output schema and no annotations, though, it leaves the agent without any expectation of the result or of failure modes when the approval is missing or already decided.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries a description, including the enum on decision and the provenance hints for approval_id (from dsh_get pending_approvals) and conversation_id (from dsh_start or dsh_list). The prose adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('裁决一个待决审批' / adjudicate a pending approval) and adds the scoping condition that it only surfaces when the conversation's on_approval=ask. No sibling among dsh_start/dsh_send/dsh_interject handles approvals, so the operation is unambiguous, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 a clear triggering context — use it only when on_approval=ask produced a pending escalation — and frames the intent as routing the decision to the caller rather than auto-allowing or auto-denying. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. what to do if the approval is no longer pending) or naming any alternative tool.

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