fx_alert_accept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the primary behavior (accept/OK the dialog), but does not disclose what happens if no dialog is open, whether the action is blocking, or any side effects beyond dismissal.

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 seven words and every word earns its place. It front-loads the action and includes the critical OK qualifier without filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output tool, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of guidance on dialog-state prerequisites or fallback behavior, but the concise semantics plus sibling names give enough context for correct use in most cases.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Accept') and resource ('the open native dialog'), and adds the OK semantic that clarifies the action. It is clearly differentiated from sibling fx_alert_dismiss, so an agent can select between them without opening schemas.

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?

The description implies this is for confirming an open dialog with OK, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus fx_alert_dismiss or fx_alert_state. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling names.

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