demo3_protected_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the token is validated for presence, expiry, and scoping, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not describe return values, error conditions, side effects, or what happens on success/failure, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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, zero wasted words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. The format is clean and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and is part of a clear sequence (consent then action), the description covers the essential flow and validation. It lacks detail on return values and error handling, but for a simple mock tool this is acceptable. The description is mostly complete for the context.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds the origin of the token ('mock token from demo3_approve_consent') which provides value beyond the schema, but this is minimal. For action, it adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies with minor addition.

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 verb 'Execute' and resource 'protected action', and ties it to the token from demo3_approve_consent. While 'protected action' is somewhat generic, the context of token validation provides specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like demo3_request_consent or demo3_approve_consent.

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 mentions using the token from demo3_approve_consent and validates its properties, implicitly telling the agent to call this only after obtaining a consent token. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the prerequisite is clear enough. Sibling tools like demo3_approve_consent are distinct in purpose.

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