confirm_birth_event

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds critical behavioral constraints: preserve request_id, bundle, and confirmation_hash; never generate the hash; never silently obtain and approve a fresh preview. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies the expected call pattern. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, the critical constraint is stated clearly, and the stale-preview caveat is included. Everything 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 complex tool with many nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow but omits details like return values, error conditions, or the farm_id parameter. The annotations handle idempotency and destructiveness, and the description covers the approval requirement, but an agent might still be unsure about what to expect after a successful call. Given the complexity, more could be expected, though the main purpose and constraints are clear.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does give meaning to the three required parameters (request_id, bundle, confirmation_hash) by tying them to the approval workflow, but it does not explain the structure of the bundle or other parameters like farm_id. The mention of 'preserve' adds semantic value to confirmation_hash and request_id, but the bundle's internal fields remain largely undefined. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 states a specific action ('Save one complete producer-approved birth bundle') and clearly distinguishes it from the preview step by referencing 'preview' and 'fresh preview'. It is unambiguous that this is the confirmation/save tool, separate from preview_birth_event.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Only call after the producer explicitly approves the exact preview') and the exclusion ('A stale preview must be reviewed again'). It implies the alternative is the preview tool, and gives clear when-to-call guidance without needing to name the sibling explicitly.

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