confirm_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary effect ('Clears the block') and the precondition ('error that report_attempt flagged as blocked'), which is useful. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or failure behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the trigger condition, the second explains the effect and benefit. Very efficient.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when, and effect. It lacks explicit error cases or what happens if the signature doesn't match, but overall it's sufficient.

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 schema description covers 100% of parameters, and the tool description does not repeat or expand on them. The parameter descriptions already include the key relationship to report_attempt, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 uses specific language: 'Call this after using your own web search tool to look up an error that report_attempt flagged as blocked. Clears the block and lets you resume fixing.' This clearly identifies the action (clearing a block) and the resource (the error/loop state), and differentiates it from siblings like report_attempt and reset_loop.

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?

It explicitly states the temporal placement: 'after using your own web search tool' and ties to report_attempt's flag, giving clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, leaving the full decision tree to the agent.

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