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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description meaningfully expands on that: approving/answering resumes the agent which 'can then overwrite or delete content, publish, or write to an external service.' It also discloses the failure mode (non-pending interaction errors, nothing delivered) and the return value (updated session status).

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?

Front-loads the action, then the type-specific parameter contract, then the risk, then the error recovery. Five dense sentences with no filler or repetition of the enum values already in the schema.

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 5-parameter destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required inputs, the type-dependent payload shape, downstream side effects, and the error/retry behavior. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 80%, and the description still adds real meaning beyond it: the answers array is one array per form step in order, may hold custom text only where that step's allowCustom is true, and an empty array skips a step. It ties 'decision' to the interaction's response options, which the schema only loosely references.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve one pending Replo agent interaction') and immediately scopes it to the user's explicit answer. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_agent_session (read) and abort_agent_session (terminate) because it is the delivery of a user decision.

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?

Explicit branching guidance: 'For a permission request, pass type permission and the decision...' vs 'For a question, pass type question and one answers array per form step.' It also gives a constraint ('Never infer an answer') and a recovery path ('call get_agent_session again') for stale interactions.

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