cs_agent_respond_permission

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-idempotent behavior; the description adds contextual consequences: persistent outcomes affect later matching requests, and rejection/cancel can stop delegated work. It also reinforces 'least privilege' decision-making, going beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes only decision-relevant information. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does, when it applies, and the decision philosophy. It doesn't explain return behavior, but with no output schema and low complexity this is not a critical gap.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions and enum values, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that permissionId comes from wait/status and by guiding outcome selection (prefer one-time approval), raising it above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and identifies the resource ('pending permission request'), clarifying it is surfaced by wait or status. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cs_agent_cancel by focusing on permission resolution rather than general cancellation.

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 states when to use the tool: when a pending permission request is surfaced by wait or status. It provides guidance on choosing outcomes with the least-privilege principle and notes that rejection or cancel can stop delegated work, but it doesn't name explicit alternatives or give a when-not-to-use condition.

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