Continue Grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, required prior state, idempotency, permissions, or return behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a continuation step.

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 a single sentence of ten words with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool is part of an interactive flow, but the description lacks essential context about preconditions, relationship to request_grant, parameter meanings, and outcome. With no output schema or annotations, this is incomplete for a continuation step.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for the parameters interactRef and grantSessionId. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which is insufficient for correctly invoking the tool.

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 'Continue' and identifies a specific resource ('interactive Open Payments grant') with a clear timing condition ('after the user approves it'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like request_grant.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('after the user approves it'), but it does not mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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