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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that an approval is scoped to the exact previewed batch and must be retried unchanged via alterlab_task_act, and that answering an approval returns 403 approver_required. That failure mode and scoping constraint are non-obvious and materially change how an agent should call it.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and the per-request-type branching before the constraints. Some clauses are densely stacked ('which approves through the user's own signed-in session'), and the 403 note could be folded tighter, but nothing is filler.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: authority requirements, batch scoping, and the failure code. What it leaves out is what a successful call returns or how to confirm the request was consumed, which would matter for retry decisions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a step up by stating the mutual exclusivity that the flat schema cannot express — answer applies only to question requests, decision only to approval requests, never both. It does not add format guidance for the 4000-character answer field, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Reply to a request a task is waiting on,' and immediately branches on the two request kinds (question vs. approval). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like alterlab_task_act (retry), alterlab_hands_answer, and alterlab_run_approve, because it names the request-id sources and the retry path explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit routing rules ('For a question pass answer; for an approval pass decision approve or deny') and an explicit exclusion: only questions may be answered over this connection, while write approvals must go through the dashboard or Connect extension. It also names where to find request ids (alterlab_task_status, alterlab_hands_pending), so the agent knows both when to use this tool and when not to.

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