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

The description goes beyond readOnly=false/destructive=false by disclosing conflict re-checking before writing, error behavior for taken slots, per-item results, and a single undoToken that reverts all commits in the call. It does not cover permissions or partial-failure details, but the key side effects are transparent.

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 front-loads the purpose and packs parameter semantics, conflict handling, and return values into a compact paragraph with no filler. The em-dash-heavy structure is somewhat dense, but every clause earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape: per-item `results` and a single `undoToken`, which an agent needs to know. It also covers the error condition and the re-run-schedule guidance; only minor edge cases like invalid-token behavior are left unspecified.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `choice` is a 0-based index into that proposal's `options` and defaults to the first/best. It does not mention `render`, but the schema itself documents that parameter fully, so the core semantics are covered.

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 specific action set — 'Confirm — accept a proposal, pick an option, commit — one or more times that `schedule` proposed. It names the resource (schedule proposals) and the key mechanism (commitToken and choice), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `schedule` and `undo`.

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 clearly frames this as the commit step after `schedule` proposes times, and even tells the agent to re-run `schedule if a slot is taken. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context and references to commitToken and undoToken provide strong situational guidance.

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