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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read, non-idempotent mutation, and the description enriches that by explaining the consent doctrine, that a confirmation claims the fact for writers, that the action is reversible in Settings, and that it costs no AI credits. It is fully consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the action and then delivers high-value guardrails (consent, no bulk, reversibility, cost). It is slightly verbose with the all-caps explanations, but each sentence contributes behavioral 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?

Given the simple 2-parameter surface, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the trigger condition, the source of factId, the effect, reversibility, and cost. No critical information is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (factId and user_intent), so with 100% schema coverage the description has a low burden. It restates that factId comes from show_trust_facts_card, which the schema already says, and does not add meaning for user_intent 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'Record[s] the USER'S confirmation of one harvested trust fact', and ties the fact id to show_trust_facts_card. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools like get_trust_facts and show_trust_facts_card by establishing a single-fact write action.

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 explicitly states the only valid trigger (explicit user confirmation via the widget button or user's own words) and lists hard prohibitions: never confirm on judgment, never in bulk, never treat silence as consent. It also ties the doctrine to task_manage decide, giving the agent a consistency anchor.

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