Confirm task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the precise state transition, that tracked hours are settled and the board and ledger hold released, the 3-day auto-confirmation fallback, and the human-approval expectation. The idempotency note explains the mechanism ('a repeat of the same key returns the same result') rather than merely restating the hint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the state it applies to, then effects, then the human-approval caution and idempotency contract. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies everything an agent needs to decide and act: precondition, side effects, human-approval expectation, timing fallback, and the required idempotency key contract.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine value on idempotencyKey by stating it is required and describing its repeat-call semantics, though taskId gets no description-level elaboration 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Accept a delivery') plus the exact precondition state ('awaitingCustomerConfirm'), and enumerates the resulting effects (settles hours, releases board and ledger hold, marks completed). This distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_task and reopen_task, which operate on different lifecycle states, without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear operating context: only applies to tasks in awaitingCustomerConfirm, and instructs 'Ask the human first.' It also explains the fallback ('the job confirms itself after 3 days'), which tells the agent this is not always strictly necessary. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling alternatives such as cancel_task or reopen_task, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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