Submits a reviewed radio answer in an observed video popup, using the question token and review evidence to prevent duplicate or unverified submissions.
Select one reviewed radio answer and submit once in the observed video popup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| basis | Yes | ||
| answer | Yes | ||
| review | No | ||
| certain | Yes | ||
| model_reviewed | Yes | ||
| question_token | Yes | ||
| retry_rejected | No | ||
| repeat_confirmed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions submitting once in the observed popup, but does not explain side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens on retry, rejection, or repeated confirmation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, that concision comes at the cost of essential structure and detail.
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?
The tool is complex: 8 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. The one-sentence description gives only the core action and omits parameter meaning, prerequisites, alternatives, and behavioral constraints; an output schema helps with return values but not with calling the tool correctly.
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?
There are 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not meaningfully explain required fields like question_token, basis, certain, model_reviewed, or the retry/repeat flags. 'Reviewed' and 'once' loosely gesture at model_reviewed and repeat behavior, but this is far from adequate compensation.
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 states a clear verb and resource: select one reviewed radio answer and submit it in the observed video popup. It distinguishes the action from pure observation tools like observe_video_question, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 phrase 'observed video popup' and 'reviewed radio answer' imply use after observation and review, and 'submit once' hints at single-submission behavior. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of observe_video_question or continue_rejected_video_question.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.