confirm_template_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It comprehensively discloses the processing flow (file upload for FILE/HTTP_CONFIG, memory storage for others), automatic rule updates (including the step-by-step process), and UI display requirement. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the detail is sufficient for transparency.

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 overly verbose with multiple sections in ALL CAPS, bullet points, and repetition (e.g., 'NEW' and 'Enhanced' markers). While it contains necessary information, the structure is not concise and could be streamlined to improve readability.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no enums, output schema present), the description covers the processing steps, side effects (automatic rule updates), and UI requirement. It mentions the return type as a dict with file URL/memory reference and rule update status. It lacks error handling details or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters. The description's 'Args' section adds valuable context: it specifies that rule_name should be consistent across inputs, task_name identifies the task, rule_input_name must match rule structure, confirmed_content is the validated content. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though not all parameters are equally detailed.

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 starts with 'Confirm and process template input after user validation.' It clearly states the verb (confirm/process) and the resource (template input). It distinguishes from siblings like confirm_parameter_input by specifying it's for template inputs, and it details sub-actions like file uploads 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' and mentions it skips confirmation if the user accepts the suggested template. This provides clear context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like collect_template_input or confirm_parameter_input, nor does it specify when not to use.

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