yaaif_agent_spec_release_approval_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the policy requirement but does not disclose side effects, whether the request is asynchronous, idempotency handling, or what happens after the request (e.g., creates an approval task). The description only says 'request review' without behavioral details.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but the second sentence is a caveat. It is concise but lacks necessary detail; however, it is not verbose and has a clear structure.

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 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meaning, expected outcomes, failure conditions, or the relationship to other approval-related tools. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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 description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no hints about spec_id, expected_version, action semantics, release_kind, restore_revision, candidate_revision, or idempotency_key. The mention of scenarios doesn't map to parameters, so the description adds no value 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 requests approval-service review for three scenarios (major release, release-candidate promotion, restore), distinguishing it from direct publish/restore tools. However, the mapping between the described scenarios and the action enum (only 'publish' and 'restore') is ambiguous – 'release-candidate promotion' isn't directly represented, so the purpose is clear but not fully precise.

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 provides a prerequisite condition ('inactive unless tenant policy v2 explicitly enables release governance') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_publish, yaaif_agent_spec_release_candidate_promote, or yaaif_agent_spec_revision_restore. It implies this is for approval workflow, but doesn't state when to choose this over direct action tools.

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