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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain what 'confirm' does behaviorally—whether it locks the outcomes, overwrites previous confirmations, or triggers irreversible downstream generation. The description adds no context about side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond what the annotations already signal. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 the tool has no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and destructive annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what happens after confirmation, what the response contains, or how the accepted_outcomes should be structured. An agent would need to infer workflow details from sibling tool names and the schema.

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 for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'outcomes' but does not explain the required 'accepted_outcomes' array structure, the optional 'source_stage' object, or 'revision_notes'. An agent must open the schema to understand what to pass, and the description adds no semantic guidance about how these parameters relate to the confirmation action.

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 'Confirm draft interview-plan outcomes before generating later stages' clearly states the verb (confirm), the resource (draft interview-plan outcomes), and the purpose (before generating later stages). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_outcomes and clear_outcomes by indicating this is a confirmation step, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies when to use this tool: after drafting outcomes and before generating later stages. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like generate_outcomes or update_outcomes. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the workflow position, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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