respond_to_dialog

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true generically; the description goes further and names exactly which option is destructive ('dont_save' discards unsaved work) and prescribes confirming with the user. This is meaningful added context beyond the structured safety profile.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter explanation and the one warning that matters. No filler sentences.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, parameter values, and destructiveness. It stops short of noting behavior when no dialog is open or how an invalid index/name is handled, but those are minor omissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: index semantics (0 = first button) plus the exact string names valid on known layouts ('ok', 'save', 'dont_save', 'cancel'). This translates the anyOf integer|string schema into actionable values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Press a button on the dialog Live is showing') and scopes it to the currently-open dialog, tying directly to the get_status sibling that reports it. An agent can distinguish this from all other session tools without opening the schema.

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?

Implies the correct sequence by referencing get_status as the source of the dialog's message and button count, and gives explicit caution ('confirm with the user first') before the destructive 'dont_save' path. It does not state what to do when no dialog is present, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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