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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that the action only archives an account/name declaration, that identityVerified=false, and that this is not verified real-name or formal e-signing. It also clarifies that legalName must come from the user, not be guessed, which is important behavioral context.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The most important condition (only after user confirmation) is front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance and legal caveats. Every sentence adds value.

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 confirming/writing tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, required values, user constraint on legalName, and the legal non-status of the confirmation. It does not specify the response or failure behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of revision/documentHash ('use server-side revision/documentHash') and the optional legalName plus its user-only constraint. requestId is not explained, but the acknowledged parameter is self-documenting via const:true in the schema, so the compensation is mostly adequate.

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 (确认/confirm), a specific resource (合作当前版本/cooperation current version), and the required precondition (user personally views and confirms). It clearly distinguishes this from related cooperation tools by emphasizing it is a confirmation of the current version, not a proposal, request, or negotiation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only after the user personally views and explicitly confirms. It also gives clear exclusions: do not auto-confirm and do not confirm on behalf of the other party. This is strong usage direction even without naming specific sibling tools.

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