confirm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that edited_criteria replaces the list, patches existing items by id, and returns an error if malformed. However, it does not mention whether changes are persistent or what side effects occur (e.g., does 'confirm' modify state?). This lack of persistence info is a gap.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some technical details could be slightly more compact. Overall, it earns its length.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete. It covers input structure, behavior, and error handling. However, it lacks context about the broader workflow (e.g., what is the kickoff prompt? How does this integrate with siblings?).

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully explains the single parameter 'edited_criteria'. It details each item's structure (id, text, oracle_type, oracle), explains oracle_type values ('command', 'browser', 'manual'), and describes how matching works (patch vs. add new). This provides essential meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manager confirms the criteria, optionally REPLACING them... then returns the kickoff prompt.' It specifies the verb 'confirms' and the resource 'criteria'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'propose' (which suggests criteria) and 'request_gate' (which requests approval).

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 implies usage is for finalizing criteria after proposal, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool vs. alternatives like 'propose' or 'check_done'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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