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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it names the exact check chain enforced (policy, risk, allowlist, vault-grant, delegated authority, cosign) and enumerates the three possible outcomes including 'passkey-required'. It stops short of stating irreversibility, idempotency, or what happens to an expired/stale proposal, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a mutation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its input precondition, with the check-chain and status list as supporting detail. Dense but no filler; slightly long clause list in the second sentence keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the possible return statuses. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the main gap is lifecycle behavior around stale or already-confirmed proposals, but the key decision-relevant content is present.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema already explains proposalId and confirmToken. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case guidance (e.g., what to do when confirmToken was not returned) beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Confirm a pending proposal') and explicitly ties the input to 'a propose_* tool', which cleanly separates it from the many propose_* siblings. An agent can identify the action and its origin object without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'pending proposal returned by a propose_* tool' establishes the precondition for calling it, which is clear usage context. It does not, however, contrast with adjacent alternatives such as cancel_pending_action or approve_cosigner_action, leaving the agent to infer which path applies to a pending item.

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