Ask users to confirm potentially destructive actions before proceeding. Prevents accidental damage by requiring explicit approval for risky browser operations.
Ask the user to confirm a potentially destructive action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| responses | No | ||
| requestState | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral trait that it asks the user for confirmation. This is useful but minimal; it does not disclose whether the tool blocks execution, what happens on user refusal, or any side effects beyond the confirmation interaction.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the primary behavior. However, it is slightly too sparse to be an excellent description given the parameter richness, so it loses a point for lack of structural detail.
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?
With three parameters, no output schema, and only a destructive hint annotation, a one-line description is insufficient. The description leaves the semantics of 'responses' and 'requestState' unexplained, and does not clarify what the user is being asked to confirm or how the confirmation result is communicated back.
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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (message, responses, requestState). The required 'message' is only implicitly referenced by 'Ask the user', while 'responses' and 'requestState' are entirely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
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 tool asks the user to confirm a potentially destructive action, which is a specific verb-resource pair and unique among the siblings. It lacks detail about what 'action' refers to, but the core purpose is 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 implies this tool should be used when an action is potentially destructive, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is enough for a competent agent to infer the general trigger condition, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.