llm_approve_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the pending call is stored server-side until approval/cancellation, and that approval proceeds with the call (optionally downgraded). It lacks explicit details on side effects (e.g., timeout, idempotency, rate limits) but covers core behavior adequately.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose statement, then provides usage context, server-side behavior note, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity (two parameters, clear context), the description covers essential aspects: why to use it, what happens behind the scenes, and parameter meanings. It does not mention return values, but an output schema exists. Minor omissions like timeout or idempotency prevent a 5.

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 explains 'approve: True to proceed with the call, False to cancel it' and 'downgrade_to: Optional cheaper model to use instead of the blocked one (e.g. "gemini/gemini-2.5-flash" instead of "openai/o3").' This adds clear semantics and an example, far exceeding 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's purpose: 'Approve or reject a pending high-cost routing decision.' It specifies the action (approve/reject) and the resource (pending high-cost routing decision), and distinguishes itself from sibling llm_route by explaining it is used when a routing tool blocks due to cost.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when llm_route (or any routing tool) blocked a call because the estimated cost exceeded LLM_ROUTER_ESCALATE_ABOVE.' It also explains that the pending call is stored server-side until approved or canceled, and describes the two action options (proceed or cancel) and the optional downgrade. No alternatives are needed as the tool is the intended mechanism.

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