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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the side effect (the paused agent resumes) and the return ('returns the resolved interaction'). It does not address retry/idempotency behavior for a tool flagged idempotentHint=false, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the answer-format rules that an agent needs before calling. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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-required-param mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and the awkward answer-index convention well. It stops short of explaining failure modes (e.g. answering an already-resolved interaction) or what the returned interaction contains, which would round it out.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema lacks: option_indices are zero-based, exactly one answer is sent per question, and permission prompts map 0=Allow / 1=Deny. The schema only constrains indices as non-negative integers, so this mapping is new information.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it 'answers an open permission prompt or question so the paused agent resumes.' That is far more precise than a restated title and tells the agent exactly what effect the call has. It never names a sibling (e.g. agents_interactions_list or agents_input), so it falls short of the 5 criterion requiring explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the call that un-pauses an agent stuck on an open prompt or question. However, it states no exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to use agents_input instead of resolving an existing interaction), so the agent must infer the boundary from the description alone.

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