Answer a permission request

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 the core behavior (pass optionId to approve, omit to deny) but does not explain side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the request is already resolved. For a simple permission response this is adequate, but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It states the purpose and the key action immediately, with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential usage: how to approve/deny and the context of when it applies. It does not specify the response format, but that is not critical for a permission action.

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%, and the description adds important semantics: it explains that omitting optionId means deny, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the optional parameter's role beyond the schema description.

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 action (grant or deny) and the resource (a pending tool-permission request), and it explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by tying it to the poll flow and the operator permission mode. It is specific and 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 explains that this tool is used when permission=operator and the calling agent decides, and mentions it is surfaced by poll. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., if permission is not operator). Still, the intended usage is clear.

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