uvcs_update_workspace_confirm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the failure mode ('Local edits to files changed upstream can produce merge conflicts') and imposes a human-approval gate. It stops short of saying what state the workspace is left in if a conflict occurs, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the operation and four short sentences with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'Requires prepare/confirm' and 'Confirms and executes a prepared operation', which say nearly the same thing.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the risk, and the approval requirement. What happens on conflict or partial failure is not described, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 there, including the exact confirm phrase. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so this sits at the 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 ('Update the workspace to the latest changeset of its branch') and situates it in the prepare/confirm pair, so it is clearly distinguishable from uvcs_update_workspace_prepare and from the other *_confirm siblings.

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 sequencing ('Requires prepare/confirm'), explicit precondition ('Call only after the user has reviewed the prepared payload and explicitly approved this exact operation'), and the token parameter ties it to the prepare call. No inference needed about when this is safe to invoke.

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