transaction_confirm

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool returns operation details for execution, which hints at a two-step flow. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or irreversibility, though this is acceptable for a simple confirm 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 two sentences that front-load the action and add a relevant return detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one documented parameter, a clear action, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the return value but does not detail the transaction lifecycle or prerequisites (e.g., the operation must be pending). This minor gap is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the 'id' parameter as a UUID of the pending operation, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'by ID', so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Confirm' and identifies the resource 'pending operation' by ID, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like transaction_deny and transaction_list. The second sentence clarifies the return value, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool—when confirming a pending operation—but does not explicitly mention alternatives like transaction_deny or transaction_list. The context of 'pending operation' gives some guidance, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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