Respond to Workflow Decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does so by stating the operation 'atomically drain[s]' the pending decision and 'persist[s] the outcome to the Novel.' This meaningfully describes the mutation behavior beyond the plain meaning of 'answer.'

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the exact when-to-use condition, and the explicit when-not-to-use with alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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 no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: the triggering condition, the behavior, the atomic side effect, the persistence target, and a clear disambiguation from alternatives. No critical context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the schema already explains 'decision' as canonical waiting text and 'option' as the choice or 'cancel' to abort and restore the snapshot.

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 and resource: 'Answer a pending workflow decision', and adds unique behavioral details ('atomically draining it and persisting the outcome to the Novel'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_badge or state manipulation tools.

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?

Explicitly provides the trigger condition: 'the server emitted a [NEED_INPUT] prompt and the caller must choose.' It also gives a direct exclusion with an alternative: 'Do NOT use when: no decision is pending — use set_badge or a state tool instead.' This fully guides tool selection.

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