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, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for going beyond that by disclosing the atomic drain-and-persist mechanism, which explains why the operation is one-shot and non-repeatable, and the schema notes that 'cancel' aborts and restores a snapshot.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, followed by a compact 'Use when / Do NOT use when' structure. Every clause carries actionable information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given the tool's mutation semantics, the annotations cover reversibility, and the description covers the trigger, the exclusivity condition, and the persistence side effect — everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema itself documents both parameters, including the special 'cancel' value with its restore-snapshot behavior. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (answer/respond) and resource (pending workflow decision) plus the mechanism: 'atomically draining it and persisting the outcome to the Novel.' The second sentence names the sibling tools (set_badge, state tools) that should be used in the alternative case, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition ('the server emitted a [NEED_INPUT] prompt and the caller must choose') and the negative condition ('no decision is pending'), and routes to named alternatives. Nothing about when to call versus not call is left to inference.

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