Confirm Behavioural Model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 409 refusal codes (review_stale, stale, needs_answers), that an edit voids a confirmation, and that a program's confirmation may be refused with 403 plus an escalation_id and parked for a human, with explicit 'do not retry' guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and side effect in the first line, then constraints and failure modes in descending priority. Slightly heavy with inline code markup and some repetition of the ir_hash constraint, but every sentence carries operational information.

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; the description instead covers the mutation, its gating conditions, and the escalation path. For a state-changing tool with no annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 75% (server_version undocumented), and the description adds real meaning for ir_hash by tying it to the value returned by get_behavioural_model. It does not explain server_version or the note field's effect beyond what the schema states.

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+resource (confirm a model's behavioural model as reviewed) and immediately declares the mutating side effect (creates a model version). It distinguishes itself from read siblings by tying confirmation to the reviewed ir_hash that get_behavioural_model returns.

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 clear precondition ('Confirm only the model whose ir_hash was reviewed') and enumerates the refusal conditions that tell the agent when this call will not apply. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as edit_behavioural_element or answer_behavioural_questions, so it falls short of the when-not/alternatives bar.

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