request_confirmation_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important traits such as HMAC-SHA256 signing, time-bound validity, and the step-up approval nature, but it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, failure modes, and whether token generation itself is gated.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no redundant phrasing. The key concept—generating a signed step-up token—is front-loaded, making it well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is only moderately complete. It explains what the token is for generally, but does not describe the return value, token format, error cases, or how the human consent step is verified.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: generates a time-bound, HMAC-SHA256-signed step-up approval token. It also explains the token's purpose for high-impact actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as enforce_policy or simulate_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 provides a clear context for use: when an agent needs to execute high-impact actions and human consent is granted. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools for related authorization or policy tasks.

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