confirm_setup

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: it requires prior explicit user confirmation and it never migrates data, which is a meaningful scope boundary for an approval-persisting write. It does not describe failure behavior if dataDir mismatches, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then the constraint, then the exclusion. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the precondition, the constraint on dataDir, and the alternative tool. The only omission is what happens on a mismatched dataDir (error vs. no-op), which is not essential for selection.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does clarify dataDir semantics ('must match current settings'), which is valuable, but the 'confirmed' parameter is only implicit in the prose and its const:true constraint is left to the schema. Partial compensation warrants a baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('persist setup approval') and clarifies the boundary ('never migrates data'), which separates it from a full setup/migration flow. It is clear but does not explicitly position itself against the sibling tools (list_courses, sync_courses, etc.), which are read/selection oriented.

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 states the precondition precisely ('After explicit user confirmation of the displayed course list and current data root') and names the alternative path for a different root ('use npm run setup'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with the routing condition spelled out.

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