Respond to Agent Input

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate mutation safety. It adds some scoping context with 'pending' and 'durable job', but it does not explain side effects, lifecycle changes, or what happens after resolution. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of field names. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is complex: four required parameters, a nested oneOf response schema, and a workspace object. The description offers almost no lifecycle context, such as how to discover the pending input_id or what 'provider interaction' means in practice. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks enough context for confident invocation.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains job_id, input_id, workspace, or how to construct the response field. The schema's oneOf block documents acceptable response shapes, but job_id and input_id remain opaque, and 'typed provider interaction' is too indirect to substitute for real parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly defines the resource as 'one pending typed provider interaction for a durable job.' The title 'Respond to Agent Input' reinforces the purpose. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like agent_start or agent_continue.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a pending typed provider interaction for a durable job needs to be resolved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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