Respond to Workflow Decision

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the drain is atomic and audited, 'cancel' restores the pre-workflow snapshot, an applied outcome is not reversible, and a second call returns STATE_CONFLICT. These are the exact behavioral facts an agent needs before committing.

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?

Effect-first opening sentence, then constraints, then explicit Use/Do-NOT-use blocks — all front-loaded with no filler. Every clause carries either a selection rule or a behavioral consequence.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with two required params, the description covers prerequisites (pending decision), irreversibility, snapshot restore, and the STATE_CONFLICT failure mode; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema lacks: option must match one of the emitted choices, and the cancel path's snapshot-restore semantics. It stops short of describing the 'decision' parameter's matching rules, so it is not a 5.

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 ('Answer a pending workflow decision'), plus the effects (atomic drain, persist to Novel). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_badge and a state tool as the alternative when nothing is pending.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when: the server emitted a [NEED_INPUT] prompt' and 'Do NOT use when: no decision is pending', and names the concrete alternatives. There is no inference required to select this tool.

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