tealkit_request_mobile_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — that the call blocks and waits for a human response — which is genuinely valuable. It does not state what happens on rejection (error vs returned rejection value), what happens on timeout, or whether the call requires prior authentication/session setup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the interaction medium, and the blocking behavior with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what is sent, what is waited on, and the timeout bound. The remaining gaps are the timeout/rejection outcome and sibling differentiation, both of which an agent would need for correct tool selection.

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 100%: all four parameters, including the 180s default for timeout_seconds and the 'diff snippet or detailed command line' meaning of details, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Sends an interactive approval prompt to the user smartphone') and states the interaction model, so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, tealkit_send_mobile_alert, which is the exact distinction an agent needs (blocking approval vs one-way notification).

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?

Usage is implied: 'waits until the user taps Approve or Reject' signals that this is a blocking call suited for gating a risky action. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternative tealkit_send_mobile_alert for non-blocking notification, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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