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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the create runs asynchronously, returns an opaque task_ref for tasks_get_status, explains failure behavior (bounded created objects, failure phase/reason/support_ref, next action), and details idempotency and recovery semantics. It even clarifies the legacy task path for mislabeled UUIDs, leaving no ambiguity.

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 and information-rich, with every sentence adding value, but it is longer than necessary. The first sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the REQUIRED/EXAMPLE lines help. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating recovery guidance), but the complexity of the tool justifies most length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameter origin, asynchronous behavior, failure handling, idempotency, recovery alternatives, and legacy path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle uncertain outcomes.

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 explicitly states 'REQUIRED: confirm_token (from a prior campaigns_quick_create call)' and provides a concrete example. It also clarifies that task_id is a distinct legacy input, not an alias for task_ref, preventing confusion about the sole parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm the durable create approval minted by campaigns_quick_create.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like campaigns_quick_create_deny and campaigns_quick_create_batch by focusing on the confirmation step of a two-phase creation flow, and even mentions alternatives like operations_get.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: it states that the same token within expiry recovers the task and that one should not prepare a replacement, that an unavailable token does not prove no task was created (inspect receipts first), and that if uncertain, recover only with operations_get and never replay or name-match. It also names the legacy path for historical confirmations.

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