confirm_variant_chapter

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions execution time (~3s) and return values (ok, thread_id, status:'ready', mother_card). It does not disclose mutability, permissions, or potential side effects, but the described action (confirming and backfilling) implies mutation.

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?

Two concise sentences followed by parameter and return info. Purpose is front-loaded, no extraneous words, and the structure aids quick scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the straightforward workflow, the description covers the essential flow. It lacks details on error handling or type constraints, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool 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?

Input schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage). Description compensates by explaining both parameters: thread_id comes from make_variants, chapter_id is selected from kg_candidates. This provides essential context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: confirm the chapter belonging to a motif, as part of a workflow after make_variants. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its role in the 'need_confirm' branch and linking to subsequent generate_variants call.

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?

Describes when to use: after make_variants returns a 'need_confirm' branch. It also provides the next step (call generate_variants). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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