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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the effect: 'the agreed scope is fixed outside both parties' own logs' and 'marks the anchored declaration as settled.' It also clarifies that the integrity hash and timestamp are created at declaration time (create_decision) and confirm only needs the dd_id, explaining the tool's dependency and non-recreation of metadata. It does not explicitly state irreversibility, but 'fixed' implies permanence. It omits return format and error behavior, but for a simple settle action, this coverage is adequate.

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 three sentences with some redundancy: 'Use after create_decision to settle the anchored boundary as an external record' and 'Confirm a pending decision: marks the anchored declaration as settled' convey overlapping information. It could be tightened to two sentences without losing meaning. The key usage context is front-loaded, but the repetition slightly detracts from conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call (after create_decision and action execution), what it does (settles and fixes scope), and the minimal input (dd_id only). It does not describe return values or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, this is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that only dd_id is required and that it references an existing declaration, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the format or where to obtain dd_id, and auth_token is not discussed beyond the schema. The added value over the schema is marginal but present.

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 clearly states the tool confirms a pending decision by marking the anchored declaration as settled, with a specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('decision'). It implicitly differentiates from create_decision by referencing it as the prerequisite, and from get_decision by focusing on the settlement action. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which would strengthen differentiation.

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 timing guidance: 'Use after create_decision' and 'Call this after the action described in the DD has been executed.' This tells the agent when to invoke it in the workflow. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sequencing is clear and actionable.

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