get_confirmation_approval_link

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the link expiry inherits the confirmation timeout, the tool only functions for pending confirmations, and it requires a Proof account with an env-var/restart setup. Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false, so this prose carries real behavioral value; it does not state whether regenerating invalidates a prior link.

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 capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by expiry and eligibility, then access setup. Every sentence carries information, though the access paragraph is slightly verbose and could be tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what the call returns (a URL string? an object with expiry?). For a link-generation tool that is the primary thing an agent needs. Expiry and access coverage are good, so this is adequate but with a clear gap.

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 there is a single 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, lookup, or constraint detail about the confirmation ID beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Generate a fresh approval link') and narrows scope to 'a pending confirmation', which separates it from the nearby get_confirmation/create_confirmation/list_confirmations siblings. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only works for pending confirmations') and an explicit access prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart), including a negative warning that start_login does not unlock this tool. No explicit when-to-use-instead-of-sibling guidance, so not a 5.

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