request_takeover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that mutations are blocked, that headful attendance is required, that headless mode refuses with no state change, and even explains the deadlock rationale. It does not say how control is returned (the resume_after_takeover sibling handles that), leaving one behavioral gap.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary action and effect before the precondition. The headless explanation is a bit verbose but it earns its place by justifying the refusal behavior.

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 explained, and the blocking/precondition behavior is well covered. However, the undocumented required parameter and the absence of explicit routing to resume_after_takeover leave real gaps for a state-gating tool.

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?

There is a single required 'reason' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. Since the schema docs are absent, the description had to compensate and does not, so the agent has no guidance on what to supply.

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 verb and effect: 'Hand control to the user' with the consequence that 'Agent mutations are blocked until they hand back.' This clearly distinguishes it from read/interaction siblings, though it never names its natural partner resume_after_takeover, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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 headful-session requirement is an implied precondition, and the headless refusal reads as a when-not condition, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over ask_user_to_do or how it relates to resume_after_takeover. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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