workbuddy_session_permission_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a raw response payload is required and advises not to invent a format if an explicit schema is given. It also mandates a status check. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the reply resolves the pending request), error conditions, or return behavior. This is adequate but not fully transparent for a mutation-like action.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential guidance (check status, use raw payload). It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

With 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It offers a prerequisite and payload guidance but omits where to obtain taskId and requestId, what constitutes a valid response, how errors are surfaced, and the effect of a successful reply. It is sufficient for a simple call but leaves an agent inferring missing details.

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 only 33% (only 'response' has a description). The description adds context for 'response' (raw payload, version-specific) but does not elaborate on 'taskId' or 'requestId' beyond their names, which are likely identifiers from the status. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but does not fully explain how these IDs relate to the pending request.

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 specific verb ('Reply') and a specific resource ('a pending ACP permission request'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like workbuddy_session_send (for general messages) and workbuddy_session_status (for inspection) by specifying the permission-reply context. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Inspect workbuddy_session_status first', providing a clear prerequisite and ordering. It implies this tool is only for pending permission requests, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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