permissions_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does reveal the key trait: it creates a pending request and does not activate scopes unilaterally. However, it omits what happens after approval/rejection, whether repeated requests are idempotent, or any notification/auth behavior.

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 with no filler; the core behavior and the important 'no activation' caveat are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and usage guidance.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not specify what scopes may be requested, whether packageName is needed in certain cases, or operational details of the pending request, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the tool description only mentions 'scopes' without defining valid values, format, or how it relates to packageName. The required 'reason' parameter and optional 'packageName' are completely undocumented, so the agent has to guess their semantics.

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 states a clear action: the assistant requests scopes from the owner and creates a pending request, explicitly noting it does not activate anything itself. The verb and resource are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like permissions_whoami.

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 rather than stated: use this when scopes need to be requested from the owner. The pending-request note implies a follow-up approval step, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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