confirm_episode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key semantic effect — the episode is unchanged and gains one attestation, enabling frequency tracking — but it is silent on whether repeating a confirm adds another attestation (idempotency), what happens if episode_id is unknown, and whether any permissions are required.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the action, the second defines when to choose it and why the distinction matters. The rationale is front-loaded and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the conceptual model (attestation counting) is conveyed well. However, for a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage and undocumented parameters, the missing idempotency and failure-mode behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The opaque fields 'at' and 'source' are never explained (presumably attestation time and origin), and vault_name/episode_id are only implied by the surrounding prose.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Record that a statement already in the vault was asserted again.' The second sentence contrasts this with re-writing the same statement, so an agent can distinguish this from write_episode without opening either schema.

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 states a clear trigger ('when you hear something the vault already holds') and explicitly names the alternative behavior to avoid ('instead of writing it a second time'). It does not address when to prefer revise_episode, supersede_episode, or dispute_episodes, but the core when/when-not split is present.

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