request_hitl_authorization

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

With no annotations supplied, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that consent requests are delivered with no link to show, explains the meaning of 'pending' vs 'active', warns that an empty array means no recipients were resolved, and flags that the returned message can be misleading.

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 long but well structured, front-loading the purpose and then covering process, return semantics, and edge cases. Slight redundancy around the approval prerequisite and the message warning costs it a perfect score, but every paragraph earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return shape, status semantics, failure mode, and next steps. It even covers access prerequisites and explicitly notes that start_login does not unlock this tool, making it actionable for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the HITL config ID. The description mentions the config and its channels but adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the schema-driven baseline without exceeding it.

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 action ('Request authorization for a HITL config') and the mechanism ('Sends consent requests to all configured channels'), and ties it to a sibling by saying it must happen before create_confirmation works. This clearly distinguishes the tool from confirmation, authorization, and HITL management siblings.

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?

Explicitly says this must be completed before create_confirmation will work, giving a concrete when-to-use rule. It also tells the agent to proceed only after the user confirms approval and warns about the empty-array branch where waiting would hang.

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