kakao_confirm_send

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Cannot be undone,' token is single-use, expires, and is discarded if chat or message differ. This goes beyond annotations and prepares the agent for side effects and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and a critical warning; the second gives the usage condition and failure recovery. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 destructive confirmation step with 3 required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: approval prerequisite, token constraints, mismatch handling, and irreversibility. The output schema handles return values, so no additional description needed. Complete for correct invocation.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions referencing kakao_prepare_send (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantic detail: the token's single-use and expiry behavior, and the requirement that chat and message exactly match the prepared values. This is valuable beyond the schema, though not exhaustive for each parameter.

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 'Step 2 of sending: actually deliver a staged message' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling kakao_prepare_send (step 1). It also conveys the irreversible nature, which is essential for an agent to understand the action.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'Only call after the user explicitly approved the preview from kakao_prepare_send.' It also specifies what to do if conditions fail (token expired or mismatch) — 'then prepare again.' This gives clear, actionable usage guidance without ambiguity.

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