yaaif_ambient_run_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Approve an ambient run gate', which merely restates the implied action. It does not mention side effects, state changes, permissions, reversibility, or consequences, leaving the agent to guess what approval triggers.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical routing exception is included in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 is a simple approve action but still lacks essential context: no explanation of what a 'gate' is, what happens after approval, whether the action is reversible, or how the three parameters relate to the operation. Given no output schema and no annotation coverage, an agent would likely need to guess important details.

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 compensate. It provides no information about run_id, note, or decided_by. The agent is given no hints about what these parameters mean, their format, or their optionality/requiredness beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb ('Approve'), a precise resource ('ambient run gate'), and adds an execution context ('agent-service'). It also names the alternative tool yaaif_approval_task_decide, which clearly differentiates this tool from its sibling approval workflow.

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 routing guidance: 'If managed by approval-service, use yaaif_approval_task_decide instead.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names the alternative, satisfying the when-not/alternatives criterion.

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