confirm_execution

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

Beyond the annotations, the description states that this is a preparation_only, session-bound capability, names the paths for both the execution API and the authority API, and discloses a critical behavioral constraint: FarmDash will not record receipts supplied by the caller, and a verifier is required. That is substantial behavior context that the annotations, which only cover safety traits, do not convey. It does not say what actually happens on invocation, such as a rejection or error.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but the most consequential information (that the tool is unavailable) comes after an opaque bracket of metadata tags. The API and authority endpoint paths are low-value for an agent choosing a tool. The tool still does not have filler, but the information hierarchy could be improved.

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?

This mutation tool, which takes six parameters, has no output schema, and has 0% schema coverage; the description explains its disabled state and the alternative, but it leaves all parameter semantics unexplained. The description is not yet sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly if it is later enabled.

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% for six parameters, so the description should carry the burden, but it provides almost nothing. Only intentId is indirectly referenced through the API path, and txHash is only hinted at via 'caller-supplied receipt'; sessionId, sessionToken, agentAddress, and details are never explained.

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 name and the phrases 'record a caller-supplied receipt' and the API path '/intents/{intentId}/execute' together imply that the tool confirms execution of an intent, but the description never plainly states that this is its job—it is dominated by a statement that the capability is disabled. It does separate itself from get_receipt, but an agent has to infer the core purpose from a somewhat incidental description of what the tool is unavailable for.

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 explicitly says the tool is unavailable for generic public confirmation and points to a specific alternative: 'use get_receipt only for verified receipt observation.' It also says a trusted adapter and a server-side verifier must be deployed before it is enabled. The conditions for not using the tool, and the alternative to use instead, are clear, though it does not describe any positive case in which it should be used.

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