request_action_consent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the human-in-the-loop flow: the user reviews the exact fill content on the Chrome permission page and picks one-time or permanent. It omits critical behavior for a gating tool — whether the call blocks awaiting the user, what happens on denial or timeout, and whether a denial aborts the subsequent write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the user-facing mechanics. The bracketed header partly restates the title, but the rest is dense and free of filler.

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 6-parameter tool (5 required) with a free-form nested payload object and no output schema, the description explains the trigger and the user-facing choice but says nothing about what the call returns or how a grant is represented to the caller, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the preferredMode enum. The description adds only the general notion that the payload is what the user will see; it supplies no extra constraints (e.g., payload size limits, required action code conventions) beyond the schema.

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 — requesting user authorization from the extension before sensitive or bulk data-fill operations — and lists concrete triggering actions (homework creation, grading, answer deletion, bulletin publishing). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling request_ui_consent or explain the relationship to list_granted_consents/revoke_permanent_consent.

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 context is explicit: call this before executing sensitive or high-volume fill operations, with examples of what counts. However, no exclusion guidance is given — it never says when to prefer request_ui_consent, or whether an existing permanent consent (checkable via list_granted_consents) makes this call unnecessary.

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