confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful state transition — that skipping the verdict leaves the claim 'open' with the answer buried in its text — but says nothing about permissions, whether a prior verdict is overwritten, or how to reverse a confirmation (e.g. unsettle/supersede).

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional-parameter caveat immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the verdict concept and the optional evidence link but ignores `initiative` entirely and omits any reversibility or interaction detail with sibling verdict tools. Adequate but with clear holes.

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 67%, and the description's explanation of `by` (the verifying evidence node, optional) largely restates the schema's own `by` description, so it adds little beyond it. The third parameter, `initiative`, is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a real gap.

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: 'Mark a hypothesis as supported.' An agent can infer this is the affirmative-verdict tool, but the description never names its obvious siblings (refute, inconclusive), so the agent must rely on the tool list to disambiguate the trio.

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 a usable decision rule for the optional `by` parameter ('record the verdict even with nothing to point at yet'), but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose confirm over refute or inconclusive, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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