supportpages_request_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the flow pauses on a real browser consent form and the agent must 'Never approve the browser form for the user', which is a human-in-the-loop constraint an agent could otherwise violate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the retry mechanics and the key prohibition. No filler or restatement of the tool 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the consent-then-retry workflow well. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation it leaves real gaps: which parameter carries the action, and when workspace/article_id are required.

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% across four parameters. The description implies 'action' holds the original action to retry and 'scopes' relates to the missing Writer permissions, but it says nothing about 'workspace' or 'article_id' or the enum values. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and it only partially does.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Request explicit browser consent for missing Writer permissions') and adds a workflow clause about preserving and retrying the original action. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like supportpages_publish_article or supportpages_get_capabilities, though it never names an alternative it might be confused with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is invoked after another action fails on missing scopes, since 'missing Writer permissions' is the only trigger signal given. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative, but the retry-after-consent instruction does convey the intended call context.

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