session_confirm_bom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a state-changing action ('Record') that persists approval durably, and it explicitly describes the behavioral difference from session_resume. It even explains the risk of skipping it (money spent on a board). This is transparent about the tool's effect and importance.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then explains the workflow context and the stakes. Every sentence earns its place: the timing, the alternative tool, and the consequence of omission. No fluff, no repetition.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to call it, why it matters, and what happens if it is skipped. The agent has everything needed to decide correctly without requiring additional lookups.

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 100%, and both parameters (notes and project_path) are already documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add new parameter semantics; it only indirectly references the notes via 'carried into the resume summary', but that detail is already in the schema. Per the rubric, with full coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Record that the user has reviewed and approved the BOM.' It then anchors the action in the workflow ('immediately after they confirm at the BOM checkpoint, before pcb_generate') and distinguishes it from the sibling session_resume by explaining the consequence of skipping it. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and when it applies.

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 timing ('immediately after they confirm at the BOM checkpoint, before pcb_generate') and the negative consequence of not calling it (session_resume will ask the user to approve again). It effectively states when to use it and what happens otherwise, leaving no ambiguity about its role in the workflow.

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