Let GUI pop-ups answer themselves

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the actual consequence: the default answer discards unsaved changes, and a concrete 'All changes will be lost' example makes the risk tangible. It also discloses persistence ('Stays until set back, cm_revert_all or a GUI restart'), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then supplies the destructive consequence, the sibling to read results, and the persistence scope in a compact run of sentences. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries distinct, useful information.

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 single-param toggle with annotations and an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, risk, companion tool for verifying results, and lifetime. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the seconds parameter including the meaningful 0/-1 sentinel values. The description adds no additional parameter nuance beyond the persistence note, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (make GUI pop-ups auto-answer with their default) and the resource (this server's pop-ups), with a concrete example of the blocking question it addresses. It also names the related sibling cm_popups, letting an agent separate this from other popup tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the motivating scenario clearly ('cannot block a run') and points to cm_popups to read the answers, which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or when an agent should avoid setting a timeout, but the use context is unambiguous.

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