permission_respond

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying the tool has side effects but is not necessarily destructive. The description says 'respond' but doesn't disclose consequences, reversibility, or error behavior. It also doesn't explain what happens when a request is 'not supported,' leaving the agent with no expectations about outcomes.

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, but it achieves this by omitting critical information. For a tool with four required parameters and no schema descriptions, this brevity is under-specification rather than clarity. It doesn't earn its place because it fails to convey necessary usage details.

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 has four required parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, making it moderately complex. The description is entirely inadequate: it doesn't explain the decision parameter's allowed values, how to obtain nativeId and requestId, which provider to use, or the meaning of 'when supported.' An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided text.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining each parameter. It does not. It doesn't mention how to fill provider, nativeId, requestId, or decision, nor does it define valid decision values. The single sentence adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Respond to a provider permission request.' The verb 'respond' and resource 'permission request' are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like permission_pending (which likely lists requests). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling or the exact context, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like calling permission_pending to obtain the request ID. The phrase 'when supported' is vague and doesn't clarify under what circumstances the tool is available. There is no instruction on how to construct the required parameters.

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