dingtalk_oa_approval_approve

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. The description only states the action and gives no information about consequences (e.g., irreversible approval), required permissions, or edge cases like already-approved instances. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, direct phrase that states the purpose without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise and 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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal and does not provide enough context about the workflow (e.g., how to obtain the required IDs, what happens after approval). The schema covers parameters but not overall usage 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for instance_id, task_id, and remark, including a helpful hint that task_id can be obtained via tasks.

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 '审批通过一条审批单' clearly states the action (approve) and the object (an approval form), using a specific verb+resource structure. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like dingtalk_oa_approval_reject (reject) and read-only tools such as dingtalk_oa_approval_detail or dingtalk_oa_approval_tasks.

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 no explicit when-to-use or alternatives to other tools. However, the schema's hint that task_id can be obtained via 'tasks' implies a workflow, and the tool's name itself suggests its role. No explicit comparison with reject or other approval actions is given, so usage guidance is only implied.

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