From e79e934fe2745ddb9c2e8f1f9fc3c7a3b38c724e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Emre K <110906681+kocaemre@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:29:55 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] docs: clarify permission context for raw input

Signed-off-by: Emre K <110906681+kocaemre@users.noreply.github.com>
---
 docs/protocol/v1/tool-calls.mdx | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/docs/protocol/v1/tool-calls.mdx b/docs/protocol/v1/tool-calls.mdx
index 082d126a6..9c656f904 100644
--- a/docs/protocol/v1/tool-calls.mdx
+++ b/docs/protocol/v1/tool-calls.mdx
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ The Client responds with the user's decision:
 }
 ```
 
-Clients **MAY** automatically allow or reject permission requests according to the user settings.
+Clients **MAY** automatically allow or reject permission requests according to the user settings. When making a permission decision, Clients **SHOULD** treat the supplied `toolCall` details as the context being approved, not just the tool identity. If a permission policy or UI depends on `rawInput` and that field is absent or unavailable, the Client should avoid presenting the request as if argument details were known; it should either show that the arguments are unavailable or apply a stricter policy such as requiring explicit user confirmation.
 
 If the current prompt turn gets [cancelled](/protocol/v1/prompt-turn#cancellation), the Client **MUST** respond with the `"cancelled"` outcome: