yaaif_approval_task_decide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states the action and allowed decisions. It does not mention that this is a state-mutating operation, any required permissions, whether claims are involved, idempotency behavior, or the effects on the task. This is a significant gap for a decision tool that will alter the approval task's state.

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 a single concise sentence with the key action and allowed values front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the tool's role in the approval workflow, the impact of optional parameters, or any prerequisites. An agent would struggle to decide and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the possible values for the 'decision' parameter, which adds value for that field. However, it offers no explanation for the other parameters (channel, comment, claim_first, idempotency_key) and does not even highlight that task_id and decision are required, leaving the agent without crucial parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Decide' and the resource 'approval task', and enumerates the allowed decision types (approve, reject, request_clarification, send_back). This gives an agent a precise idea of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like yaaif_approval_task_claim or yaaif_ambient_run_approve, so it is not fully distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for deciding an approval task that has been claimed or that it is distinct from claiming or other approval actions. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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