confirm_parameter_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses storing in memory, not uploading files, requiring explicit user confirmation, and the automatic rule update process including steps like fetching current rule structure and calling create_rule(). It lacks details on error handling or idempotency but covers essential behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with sections but is verbose. It repeats information (e.g., confirmation types and storage rules appear in multiple sections). While front-loaded with the main purpose, it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 7 parameters (5 required) and an output schema, the description covers behavior, parameter semantics, and output format ('Dict containing stored value confirmation and rule update status'). There are no significant gaps for the tool's complexity.

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 add meaning. The Args section explains each parameter, including constraints like rule_input_name must be one of the rule structure's inputs and explanation is only for JQ/SQL expressions. It adds context beyond the schema, though some parameters like task_name are not elaborated beyond their name.

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 tool confirms and stores parameter input after user validation. It specifies the action (confirm and store), the resource (parameter input), and the context (user validation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'collect_parameter_input' and 'confirm_template_input' by detailing automatic rule updates and memory storage.

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 explicitly states it is a 'MANDATORY step before proceeding to next input', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It mentions handling default and final confirmation types and automatic rule updates when rule_name is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist, though the sibling list provides context.

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