confirm_reply

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

Without annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: idempotent and single-use tokens. However, it omits details like error handling, authentication needs, or return format. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and behavior. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., how to get a token), what 'force' does, and what the response or side effects are. It meets minimal requirements but leaves gaps.

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 description mentions 'token' in context but does not explain what it is or where to obtain it. The 'force' parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('EXECUTE the staged write') and lists specific steps (look up token, post to Medium, log, persist dedup row). It distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_reply by indicating this is the final confirmation step.

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 mentions idempotency and token single-use, which inform usage constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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