Request action authorization

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: logging to ~/.peek/audit.log on every call, return of one-shot token or denial, and the pre-authorization use case. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are not contradicted; the description adds valuable context.

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 that front-load the core function, mechanism, and usage. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. The structure logical: what -> how -> when.

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?

Given the complexity (multiple action types, permission levels, logging, token concept), the description covers the essential points: authorization flow, token usage, logging, and context (Level-3 or pre-authorize). Lacking explicit mention of what happens on timeout or error, but overall sufficient for an agent to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good individual parameter descriptions (e.g., sessionId description explains its origin and purpose). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not explain the action sub-schemas but the schema already handles that.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: requesting user authorization for a browser action via a side-panel banner. It distinguishes itself from sibling execute_action by specifying it returns a token or denial, and it uses a specific verb ('authorize') on a specific resource ('browser action').

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before execute_action when the origin is at permission Level 3, or to pre-authorize.' This provides clear context and differentiation from siblings, and implies not to use it when permission level is lower or when direct execution is allowed.

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