Answer pending question

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that a successful answer starts a continuation run, that the returned run_id belongs to the new continuation run (not the parked run), and that this id should be used with get_run_result. This is not disclosed in the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and is crucial for correct usage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the two modes, and the third explains the important return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential return behavior (continuation run id) and directs the user to get_run_result. It also covers the two request types and the source of pending inputs. It does not mention potential error conditions or edge cases, but the provided information is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

Since the schema already documents all six parameters (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning by explaining how approved and value map to different request types, and it clarifies the meaning of the returned run_id (which is not a parameter but affects interpretation of run_id usage). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: to answer a run paused on a human-input request. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_pending_inputs (which lists pending requests) by explaining the two modes (approval vs input request) and specifying the source. The verb 'Answer' plus the resource 'pending input' is specific and informative.

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 provides explicit context on when to use the tool: it is for runs paused on human input from list_pending_inputs, and it differentiates between setting approved for approvals and value for input requests. It also gives follow-up guidance to poll the returned continuation run with get_run_result. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-paused runs) or mention alternatives beyond the implicit reference to list_pending_inputs.

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