sdd-approve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Approve' which implies a mutation but does not explain the validation mechanism, what happens if the expected revision or artifact SHA does not match, or any side effects. There is no mention of safety, reversibility, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with four required parameters. It does not waste words, but it also fails to convey essential usage details, making it borderline adequate in 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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no information about return values, preconditions, or postconditions. It does not explain what constitutes a valid revision or how the approval process works, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 25% (only featureName has a description), and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'exact' but does not explain that expectedRevision and expectedArtifactSha256 are used for exact matching. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic field list.

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 action ('Approve') and the object ('an exact validated phase revision'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validation or status checks by indicating it is the approval step for phase revisions.

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 implies the tool is used when a phase revision has been validated and needs approval, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sdd-validate-design or sdd-status. There are no exclusions or alternative tool guidance, though the context of 'validated' hints at a prerequisite.

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