xae_dialog_resolve

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real domain context: it introduces the 'control-class' vs 'destructive-class' distinction and warns that activating/running/downloading/logging-in/deleting/safety prompts carry destructive classification. It softens the blanket destructive hint with useful granularity, though it omits auth/confirm requirements.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and example values, then the classification nuance. No filler, though the classification clause is jargon-heavy and slightly compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The gaps are the undefined hwnd and confirm_token parameters, especially confirm_token, which matters for a destructive-class tool that likely pairs with tc_request_confirmation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers two of four params: it enumerates valid 'button' values and explains remember=true semantics. hwnd and confirm_token are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap for the confirmation-related field.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Click a button on an open XAE dialog', with concrete examples ('OK', 'Yes', 'No', 'Cancel'). Clearly distinguishable from sibling xae_dialogs (which lists dialogs) since this one acts on an already-open one.

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?

Implies the precondition that a dialog must already be open, and gives conditional guidance for the remember flag ('never for machine-affecting prompts'). However, it never states when to prefer this over related tools like xae_dialogs or tc_request_confirmation, so routing is left to inference.

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