confirm_not_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the draft state and unblocks publish_draft, plus a user-confirmation requirement, but it omits permissions, reversibility, and what happens if the draft is not actually a duplicate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. The precondition follows immediately and there is no filler.

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 not be explained. For a simple one-parameter state flag, the description supplies purpose and a user-confirmation precondition; the remaining gaps are behavioral rather than blocking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter, draft_id, is undocumented in the schema. The description says 'a draft' but does not explain the identifier format or where to obtain it, so it adds little beyond the field name.

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: 'Mark a draft as a genuinely different item.' It also names the downstream effect on the sibling tool publish_draft, so an agent can distinguish this from check_duplicate and publish_draft itself.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'Only call after the USER said in chat that it is not the same item.' This defines when to call it, but it does not explicitly name check_duplicate as the alternative or explain other cases where calling would be inappropriate.

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