Respond to a permission request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by detailing decision semantics ('accept (once), acceptForSession (don't ask again this session), decline, cancel'), which goes beyond basic approval. It doesn't cover potential irreversible effects or auth requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the main action, then explains how to get the requestId, and finally lists the decisions. Every sentence is informative with no unnecessary clutter.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers how to use it: requestId source, decision options, and request types. It doesn't explain the return value, but that is not critical for this straightforward approval action.

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?

The schema covers only requestId (33% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the decision enum values and mentioning the thread context for threadId. The requestId schema description is reinforced, and the added decision semantics significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's function: 'Approve or decline a pending permission request' and specifies the resource types (command execution, file read, file change). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like respond_to_user_input by focusing specifically on permission requests.

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?

It provides explicit guidance for obtaining the requestId ('Get the requestId from pending_actions or get_thread') and explains the meaning of each decision option. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the source tools.

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