confirm_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the draft/diff is immutable, it is surfaced natively to the user, and a commit happens only on user acceptance. It still omits what happens on rejection, whether the call blocks on human input, and whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the human-facing display behavior is front-loaded before the commit condition. The brevity is close to under-specification rather than bloat, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover basic safety. However, for a mutating confirmation step with two undocumented required parameters and an unstated rejection path, the description does not give the agent quite enough to call it correctly in all cases.

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?

Both parameters (draft_id, task_id) are required and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It alludes to a 'draft' but never distinguishes draft_id from task_id or explains their relationship, leaving the second required parameter entirely unaddressed.

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 names an action ('Show the user the immutable draft/diff in a native form') and a commit condition, but the verb 'show' sits awkwardly against a tool named confirm_card, and it never states plainly that this tool commits a draft on the user's behalf. An agent can infer the intent, but it is not stated in a specific verb+resource form.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings like prepare_card, get_card, or manage_card. The phrase 'Only user acceptance commits' hints that it belongs at a user-facing acceptance step, but the when/when-not conditions and alternatives are left entirely to inference.

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