request_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses that the user will see an approval card with Approve/Reject buttons, that the decision appears as a conversation message in a specified format, and that the agent must stop and wait after calling. This goes well beyond a generic 'request approval' summary.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, proactive usage, UI behavior, response format, and the stop-and-wait requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so the critical behavioral instruction is prominent. No redundant or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what happens after the call, what the user response will look like, and how to handle both approval and rejection. For a tool whose entire purpose is to pause for human input, this is complete and self-contained.

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 already explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and nullability. The description adds illustrative examples of the summary text and the resulting user message, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Request human approval before proceeding with an action.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's role by framing it as a proactive confirmation mechanism, not a generic prompt or display tool. This is unmistakably different from sibling tools like `choose` or `ui_click`.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this tool proactively whenever you are about to take a significant or irreversible action.' It also gives a when-not instruction: 'Do NOT wait for the user to ask you to seek approval.' This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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