create_confirmation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: authorization requirements, error response behavior, encryption mode selection, and environment setup via PROOF_API_KEY. It even warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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 long but organized into clear sections (overview, Agent usage, Encryption, ACCESS), with the core purpose front-loaded. Each paragraph adds necessary operational information; there is 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 HITL confirmation creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers purpose, preconditions, failure handling, encryption complexity, follow-up polling, and access requirements. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds critical semantic depth: hitl_id must reference an authorized config, and message is not plaintext under E2E encryption but a JSON ciphertext envelope with v1/v2 selection rules and SDK guidance. This goes well beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: "Create a HITL confirmation request." It then adds behavior that distinguishes it from related tools: it sends an approval request to configured channels and notes "First response wins." This clearly separates it from get_confirmation, wait_for_confirmation, and request_hitl_authorization.

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 "Agent usage" section gives explicit preconditions (HITL config must be authorized), error recovery (on 403 call request_hitl_authorization and wait for user approval), and post-actions (poll get_confirmation or use get_confirmation_approval_link). This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs, with named alternatives.

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