request_hitl_authorization

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description discloses a large amount beyond that: the request is delivered to each channel with no link to show, the returned `authorizations` array shape, the meaning of 'pending' vs 'active' per entry, the misleading `message` on the empty branch, and the hang risk when no recipient resolves. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior that prevents a bad call.

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 action and its dependency are front-loaded in the first sentence, and most of the length is load-bearing (status interpretation, empty-array trap). It is on the verbose side and the 'Agent usage' paragraph could be tightened, but every clause conveys a distinct behavior rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of return-value explanation and does so thoroughly, including the per-entry fields and the dangerous empty-array interpretation. It also documents the Proof account / PROOF_API_KEY access requirement and the fact that start_login does not unlock this tool, which closes the two gaps that would otherwise cause repeated failed calls.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the id is a 'HITL config' without adding format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 verb and resource — 'Request authorization for a HITL config' — and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('sends consent requests to all configured channels'). The reader can distinguish it from siblings like create_authorization, create_confirmation, and get_hitl without opening any schema.

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 states the ordering constraint against a named sibling: 'This must be completed before create_confirmation will work for this HITL config.' It also gives the post-call condition ('you can proceed once the user confirms they have approved'), so both the trigger and the exit condition are documented.

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