cc_send_decision

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions default behavior (allow) and configurability but lacks detail on side effects, mutability, or error states. Minimal behavioral insight.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It combines purpose and behavioral notes without clear separation, making it somewhat dense but not optimal.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify how to use session_id, confirm, or allow_frontmost, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (confirm, decision, session_id, allow_frontmost). It only hints at possible decision values (yes/no/cancel) but does not specify them in the schema or description.

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 clearly states the tool sends yes/no/cancel decisions when the CLI is waiting for confirmation. While it does not explicitly distinguish from every sibling tool, the purpose is specific and recognizable among similar cc_send_* tools.

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 implies the tool is used for CLI confirmation prompts, providing context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. It does not mention any prerequisites or required conditions.

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