request_region_from_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most: the call blocks, and it can end via timeout. That is genuinely useful beyond the schema. It does not say what happens on timeout (error vs. empty return) or whether the request requires an active Dashboard session.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the interactive-drawing action and the blocking/timeout caveat both front-loaded where an agent will see them.

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 two-parameter interactive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanics (UI prompt, drawing, blocking, timeout). The notable omission is the return value, since with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn what a completed or timed-out call yields.

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 both parameters (name, message) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, length, or default guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask the user ... to draw a region on the camera preview') and the interactive nature cleanly separates it from the programmatic define_region sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 implies the usage context (you want a human to pick a region on the live preview) but never states when to prefer this over define_region or list_regions, nor any prerequisite that a camera preview must be active. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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