as_sdk_accept_licenses

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the return value ('JSON with the command output, or confirmation_required'), which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: one line for the main action, then 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could elaborate on the 'confirmation_required' case or prerequisites, but it is still fairly complete for the task.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for the nested parameters (confirm, timeout) with constraints. The description merely restates their names without adding new semantics. Schema coverage is high for sub-properties, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Accept') and the resource ('all pending Android SDK licenses'), and includes the equivalent command 'sdkmanager --licenses'. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated to license acceptance.

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 usage when there are pending licenses, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no comparisons are needed, but usage context is minimal.

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