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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one-shot semantics, token expiry, the recovery path using the exact token, post-confirm polling via tasks_get_status, and explicit constraints like never replaying or recovering by name. This is rich behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 four sentences, all dense and purposeful, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes critical operational guidance; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter confirmation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, what is returned, the post-action step, recovery on lost responses, and explicit anti-patterns. Nothing critical an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema only provides the name confirm_token with no description, so the description must add meaning. It does add meaning by indicating the token is exact, has an original expiry, is tied to a specific task, and can be reused only within that expiry for recovery. It does not explicitly state where the token comes from (e.g., the prepare step), but the 'prepared plan' context implies its origin.

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 verb (confirm), a specific resource (a prepared copy/bulk-append plan), and clear constraints (exactly one plan, after explicit user approval). It also distinguishes this from sibling prepare/deny tools by emphasizing it is a confirmation step and warning not to prepare a replacement copy.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: confirm exactly once, then poll tasks_get_status. It also provides alternatives when uncertain, directing the agent to use operations_get on the original route, and explicitly forbids name-based recovery or preparing a replacement copy. This is clear, actionable routing.

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