previewapk_request_human

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the portal side effect (device card shows 'Your agent needs you'), the returned field (message_for_human), the handback mechanism via wait_for's result, and the prerequisite of a live session. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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 opening clause is front-loaded with the purpose, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct operational content (side effect, relay instruction, parking instruction, prohibition). It is dense but a little long; the parenthetical note on the handback and the live-session requirement could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description explicitly explains the return value (message_for_human) and what the subsequent wait_for call yields. For a 2-parameter coordination tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly, with only the device parameter left to the schema.

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 50%: 'reason' is documented in the schema (short line, ~200 chars) and the description implies its content ('what the human needs to do'), but the 'device' parameter is never mentioned in either the description or the schema. The description therefore only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Ask the human for a step only a human should do') and enumerates concrete triggering cases (password, 2FA, payment, CAPTCHA, irreversible actions). It is clearly distinguishable from automation siblings like previewapk_tap or previewapk_act.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use cases, a follow-up workflow (relay message_for_human VERBATIM, then park on previewapk_wait_for with condition='driver'), and a hard exclusion: never have the human paste secrets into chat. Alternatives and sequencing are spelled out rather than implied.

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