uvcs_add_confirm

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds real substance beyond them: recursive add semantics, the .meta companion file behavior for Unity assets, and a mandatory human-approval gate before execution. It stops short of covering failure modes or whether a consumed token can be reused, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the operation does before the procedural constraint. 'Requires prepare/confirm' and 'Confirms and executes a prepared operation' partially restate each other, a small redundancy but not enough to obscure the message.

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 confirm tool with no output schema, this covers scope, the Unity side effect, the prepare dependency, and the approval gate — everything needed to invoke it safely. What the call returns on success is left unstated, a minor gap given no output schema exists to compensate.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that token comes from uvcs_add_prepare and that confirmPhrase must be exactly 'confirm uvcs add'. The description only broadly gestures at 'the prepared payload' and the prepared operation, adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Add a path to Plastic SCM / UVCS version control recursively') plus the Unity-specific side effect of adding the matching .meta file. The second sentence makes clear this is the confirm half of a prepare/confirm pair, which distinguishes it from uvcs_add_prepare without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit timing constraint: 'Call only after the user has reviewed the prepared payload and explicitly approved this exact operation,' plus 'Requires prepare/confirm.' The precondition is unambiguous, though it never names uvcs_add_prepare as the required predecessor tool — that link is only inferable from the token parameter's schema description.

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