Confirm and execute a staged action

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. While the annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, the description adds critical behavior: tokens are single-use and expire, and the verification result may be 'unverified' meaning the action 'may or may not have gone through' and must not be reported as success. This is exactly the kind of nuanced behavioral context an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function ('Execute a previously staged write action'), then packs essential usage constraints and result interpretation into a compact second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the result reports ('verified' vs 'unverified') and how to handle the ambiguous case. It covers prerequisites (user approval of exact content), token usage constraints, and the scope of the tool ('only tool that changes anything'). This is sufficiently complete for a tool with two simple parameters and a nuanced side effect.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the token lifecycle (single-use, expires) and the verification outcome associated with the confirmation_token. It also implies the fingerprint is tied to the staged payload. This supplements the schema descriptions without fully re-explaining each parameter, so a 4 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 clearly states the function: 'Execute a previously staged write action.' It also identifies the exact resource (previously staged actions) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it is 'the ONLY tool in this server that changes anything on Facebook.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing with strong differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it only after the user has seen the preview and explicitly approved that exact content.' It also implies when not to use by stating the tool is the only one that changes anything, leaving staging to sibling tools. Token expiry and single-use behavior are also stated as usage constraints.

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