uvcs_label_create_confirm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them – the approval gate and the token-based handoff from prepare. It does not say what happens if the token is reused/expired or what the result looks like, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the condition. Minor redundancy between 'Requires prepare/confirm' and 'Confirms and executes a prepared operation', but no filler.

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 confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical precondition and approval requirement. It omits what the tool returns and error behavior (expired/stale token, duplicate confirm), which is a modest gap for a non-idempotent mutation.

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% and both parameters are fully documented, including the exact confirmPhrase string. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the prepare/confirm flow, so the 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 (create a label on a changeset) and clarifies its role as the confirm half of a two-step flow. It is distinguishable from the many siblings, and the prepare sibling it pairs with is named in the schema. It stops just short of explicitly naming the prepare tool in the description text.

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?

'Requires prepare/confirm' and 'Call only after the user has reviewed the prepared payload and explicitly approved this exact operation' give an explicit precondition and exclusion. An agent knows it must not call this without a prepared token and user approval.

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