confirm_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write/action tool. The description adds the context that it executes an already-prepared operation and requires prior user consent, which is helpful but not deeply informative about side effects or failure modes. It does not contradict annotations and provides modest additional context.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and places the critical usage constraint right after. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, a full schema description, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description provides the essential operational guidance (execute only after confirmed preview), making it complete for an agent to call it 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?

There is only one parameter, confirmation_id, and the schema description covers it fully ('confirmation_id из ответа инструмента'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 the tool executes a 'prepared operation' ('Выполнить подготовленную операцию'), which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly implies a confirmation/execution step rather than a read or list operation, and the user-consent condition distinguishes it from generic action tools. However, 'prepared operation' is somewhat generic and doesn't name a specific resource type, so it falls short of perfect clarity.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'Вызывайте ТОЛЬКО после того, как пользователь увидел preview и явно согласился выполнить именно эту операцию' (call only after the user saw the preview and explicitly agreed). This is a strong, unambiguous precondition that also implicitly tells the agent when not to call (before consent). It effectively differentiates this from siblings like cancel_action or other action tools.

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