uvcs_checkout_confirm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: the lock-conflict refusal behavior, the lock.conf rule dependency, and the exact approval precondition. It stops short of saying whether a token is single-use or what happens on repeat confirmation, which would fully close the gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the locking rationale follows. There is mild redundancy between 'Requires prepare/confirm' and 'Confirms and executes a prepared operation,' but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers workflow, failure mode, and approval gating well. Only the post-confirmation return/state outcome is left unstated, a minor gap for a confirm tool.

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%, including the exact confirm-phrase string and the token's origin, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the prepare-token workflow but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (check out files) plus the concrete effect of taking an exclusive lock under lock.conf, and explains why teams use it (protecting scenes, prefabs, binary assets). This distinguishes it clearly from uvcs_checkout_prepare, which only stages the operation.

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?

Explicitly states the prepare/confirm dependency and the precondition that the user must have reviewed the prepared payload and approved this exact operation. It also names when the tool fails (files locked by someone else are refused), so the agent knows the refusal path.

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