tc_request_confirmation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the token is 'single-use' and must be tied to an exact action name, which tells the agent this is a minting/authorization step rather than a state-changing operation. It omits token lifetime and where the token must subsequently be supplied, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the invocation detail second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the token's key trait (single-use). What is missing is the workflow link – how the issued token is consumed by the subsequent control/destructive call – which matters for a confirmation-gate tool, though it is a modest gap for a 2-parameter minting tool.

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 carries the burden. It explains 'action' well (the exact tool name, with a concrete example) but leaves 'target' as a bare restatement of the field name, giving no format or per-action semantics despite the empty-string default. Half the parameters are meaningfully documented, half are not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Issue a single-use confirm_token') plus the scope ('for a control/destructive tool'), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from tc_set_mode or tc_safety_status immediately, and the name matches the stated purpose exactly.

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?

It implies the when ('for a control/destructive tool') and gives the how ('use the exact action name ... and its target'), which is enough to route an agent here before a destructive call. It stops short of explicitly stating the precondition (e.g. only when the safety mode demands confirmation) or naming any alternative, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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