request_human_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the tool pauses execution and asks the user for approval, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not indicate what happens after the user responds (e.g., return value, whether the action is then executed automatically), leaving a minor gap in transparency.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Pause and ask') and context ('before risky actions'). It includes relevant examples without unnecessary verbiage. Every part 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?

Given the tool's low complexity and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context for an agent to understand purpose and usage. However, with no output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned what the tool returns (e.g., user's approval decision), which is a minor omission. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already includes examples for 'situation' and 'recommended_action', so the description does not need to compensate.

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 function: 'Pause and ask the user for approval before risky actions' with specific examples (price mismatch, large amount, unusual request). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auto_pay_checkout and execute_payment, which actually perform actions, whereas this tool interjects a human-in-the-loop checkpoint.

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 enumerates when to use the tool: 'before risky actions' and lists example scenarios. While it doesn't name alternatives directly, the context is clear: use this before proceeding with risky operations. The absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is a minor gap, but the examples provide sufficient direction for an agent.

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