Reply to a ZCode permission or input request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key policy behavior (what authorizes an allow, what must not be treated as authorization, and that this does not approve the task result). It stops short of describing the effect of replying (does the task resume, is the decision final/irreversible) or any auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the trail back to zcode_events, then layered policy constraints in short declarative sentences. No filler and no repetition of the title or name.

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?

No output schema, so the description needn't explain returns, but for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves request_id/task_id sourcing and the reason/answers fields entirely unexplained. The decision-policy side is well covered; the mechanical side is not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps the decision enum to request types (allow/deny for permission requests, answer for input requests), which is genuinely useful, but it never addresses task_id, request_id, reason, or how the nested answers object is keyed.

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 (reply) and resource (a pending ZCode permission or user-input request) and ties the request back to the sibling tool that surfaces it, zcode_events. It also draws a boundary against another sibling by noting it 'does not approve the task result.' An agent can distinguish this from zcode_result or zcode_continue without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when/when-not rules: use allow only when the user explicitly authorized the action, otherwise deny or ask; do not infer permission from task instructions, worktree use, or ZCode mode; for input requests, answer only from known facts or explicit user direction. These are directly actionable decision constraints.

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