request_takeover

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the agent is disconnected from the browser during control and never sees what the owner types, plus the possible terminal states (done/cancelled/expired/incomplete) and the 'waiting' intermediate state. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or timing constraints on the request itself.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then behavior, then return states, then the parameter note. Dense but every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation tool the description is nearly complete, and it goes beyond an existing output schema by enumerating result values and the wait_for_takeover handoff. The only gap is the undocumented wait_seconds parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'reason' well (one short line shown to the owner, with an example), but 'wait_seconds' (default 240) is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb ('Ask your owner to take over the browser') and the exact triggering conditions (login, 2FA, CAPTCHA, anything only they can do). It is clearly separable from siblings like wait_for_takeover, which it names as the follow-up.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition ('when you are stuck at a login, 2FA code, CAPTCHA') and routes the waiting case to wait_for_takeover. It does not contrast with other human-in-the-loop siblings such as request_approval, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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