Resolve Codex Agent Request

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that decision is a shorthand for approvals and response is used otherwise, but it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or consequences beyond resolving the pending request.

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 sentences lead with the tool's purpose, then provide routing detail without filler. The literal '{decision}' placeholder is an unresolved template artifact that slightly undermines precision, but the overall structure is compact and front-loaded.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation logic and the required requestId through the schema. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or how to discover the 'current app-server schema,' leaving some operational ambiguity for the agent.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates by clarifying the core parameter split: decision applies to command/file approvals, while response is the exact object for other request types. It leaves '{decision}' as an unresolved placeholder, but the schema's decision description lists common values, making the combined picture usable.

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 'Answer a pending app-server approval, permission, user-input, dynamic-tool, or MCP elicitation request,' which names a specific verb and a clear resource class. This distinguishes the tool from sibling messaging/steering tools like agent_send and agent_steer by focusing on resolving pending app-server requests.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'For command/file approvals, decision is shorthand' and 'For other request types, pass the exact response object.' This tells the agent which parameter to use in which situation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions.

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