get_confirmation_approval_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the link expiry inherits the confirmation timeout, that only pending confirmations work, and that start_login does not open this tool. It also alerts the caller to the required environment setup.

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 two tight paragraphs with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access note is separate and actionable, so every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (an approval link), when it works, how expiry behaves, and what access setup is required. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema already documents the single id parameter as a 24-hex 'Confirmation ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds context ('pending confirmation', 'confirmation timeout') but does not materially expand the meaning of the id parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a fresh approval link for a pending confirmation.' This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_confirmation or render_auth_link, and the 'Only works for pending confirmations' line adds scope rather than ambiguity.

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 description gives clear conditions for use: it only works for pending confirmations, and it explains the access prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use X instead,' so it stops short of a full 5.

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