Answer pending question

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, revealing a non-obvious behavioral trait: a successful answer starts a new continuation run, and the returned run_id belongs to that new run, not the parked one. It also discloses standing-consent side effects for always_allow and the soft-budget semantics for max_turn_seconds. These are material and not visible from the input schema or openWorldHint alone.

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 few dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence is an immediate purpose and the rest explains conditional behavior and the crucial continuation-run nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 moderate-to-complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important pitfalls: approval vs input, continuation run id, consent revocation, and soft budget semantics. It could still mention error/edge cases or example usage, but given the excellent parameter descriptions in the schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful cross-parameter semantics: approved=true/false for approvals, value for input requests, and clarification that run_id is the currently parked run. It further clarifies always_allow requires approved=true and is only valid on consent_tool rows. This goes beyond the schema but is not overwhelming.

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's core actions: 'Answer a run that is paused on a human-input request', distinguishes between approval and input, and references list_pending_inputs as the source of pending requests. It also stands apart from siblings list_pending_inputs and the later poll through get_run_result.

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 guidance is present: use this after finding a pending request via list_pending_inputs, and poll the returned continuation run with get_run_result. The description also clearly separates approval vs input data via approved/value. It does not explicitly say when not to use or which sibling would be an alternative, but it is inferable and the sibling references give enough guidance.

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