confirm_mcp_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a credential exchange, that the resulting token is durable with a 90-day TTL, and how the token is meant to be presented. It omits failure modes (invalid/expired/single-use code) and any rate-limit or re-issue behavior, which keeps it short of a 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 sentences, zero waste, and the core operation plus TTL are front-loaded before the follow-up usage instructions. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter auth-exchange tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential loop: what is consumed, what is produced, and how to use the produced token. It could say more about error handling or code lifetime, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both `email` and `code` are already documented as such. The description adds only the provenance link ('the 6-digit code emailed by register_mcp_agent'), which marginally enriches the `code` parameter but does not add format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: exchanging a 6-digit emailed code for a durable bearer token, including the 90-day TTL. It also names the sibling that produces the code (register_mcp_agent) and the sibling that consumes the token (verify_mcp_claim), so an agent can place this step precisely in the auth flow.

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 tells the agent exactly what to do with the result: pass the token as `agentToken` on verify_mcp_claim or as an `Authorization: Bearer` header. The implicit prerequisite (call after register_mcp_agent and receiving the emailed code) is clear from the wording, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or notes on code expiry/reuse.

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