confirm_reply

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

Discloses idempotency (returns deduped: true), force usage, token single-use and 5-minute expiry. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers major behaviors well.

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?

Three sentences with key information front-loaded. No verbose or redundant content. 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?

Covers usage, dedup, token expiry. But does not mention return format for normal success (only idempotent case) or error scenarios. With no output schema, more detail on response would help.

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%, but description explains token as from propose_reply with expiry, and force as bypass for dedup. Adds meaning, though token format could be specified.

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?

Description clearly states 'EXECUTE the staged write' and details the actions: look up token, post, log, persist. It distinguishes from siblings like propose_reply and comment_on_post by mentioning the token flow and dedup behavior.

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?

Provides clear context: token from propose_reply, force flag for rare bypass, idempotent behavior. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but implies the tool's role in a two-step reply process.

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