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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutation (writes DeliveryProof.clientConfirmed), what it does NOT do (does not change session.status), side effects (triggers SC resolution), idempotency, and conditions for rejection. This is exemplary transparency for a state-changing tool.

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 dense yet every sentence earns its place: purpose, conditions, optional parameter, overlay behavior, idempotency, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses clear formatting with semicolons and commas for readability.

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 complexity of this tool (dual-confirm flow, overlay behavior, conditions, idempotency, side effects), the description covers all critical aspects. It explains prerequisites, prohibitions, what it changes, what it does not change, and the trigger for SC resolution. No output schema exists, but the idempotent return field is mentioned, which is sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'rating' parameter (1-5, only if service captures quality) but does not explain 'note', 'apiKey', 'orgSlug', or 'sessionId'. The latter three are likely self-evident identifiers/authentication, but 'note' and 'apiKey' would benefit from at least a phrase. Overall, partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Confirm'), identifies the resource ('delivery'), and clarifies the exact effect ('writes DeliveryProof.clientConfirmed'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like portal_session_confirm by framing this as the client-side confirmation that closes dual-confirm verification.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: 'Allowed once the session is completed/delivered/documented; rejected if an open dispute exists.' It also notes idempotency and how it fits into the broader verification flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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