resolve_leave_dialog

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 a bounded multi-step workflow, the condition for early return, and a lab-only fallback gated by physical-input approval. This goes well beyond the tool name, though it does not mention side effects of accepting the leave or what happens to the page afterward.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then packs the entire workflow into one structured sentence. There is no filler, though the dense jargon and run-on structure make it harder to parse than necessary.

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 workflow branches are covered, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, the description omits any guidance on session_id and does not position this tool relative to handle_dialog, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the single optional session_id parameter is never mentioned in the description. The description adds no meaning about what session_id represents or how it affects the workflow; with low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve an intended beforeunload leave.' It clearly targets a particular dialog workflow and distinguishes itself from the more generic handle_dialog sibling by naming 'beforeunload,' though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an intended beforeunload leave needs resolving. It provides detailed internal conditions such as returning immediately when no dialog exists and using the fallback only when protocol handling fails, but it does not explain when to prefer this over handle_dialog or state exclusions.

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