Submit Real-World Action for Confirmation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call does not execute anything, requires a deployment-supplied step-up token the agent cannot pass, never accepts a human-confirmed flag, returns status 'awaiting_confirmation', and terminates the agent's turn. This adds valuable behavioral clarity without contradicting readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true because the destructive/real-world effect is deferred to the patient's confirmation.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then each sentence adds a distinct operational fact: auth requirement, no execution, no confirmation flag, return status, terminal behavior, and follow-up tool. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description supplies the essential return detail and names the companion tools action_propose and action_status. Auth, side-effect scope, and repeat-call policy are all covered, leaving no critical gap for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 input schema already fully describes action_id as the ID returned by action_propose, so the description is not required to compensate. It reinforces that the action must be previously proposed and that the same id must not be reused, but it adds no format-level semantics 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 names a specific verb and resource: submit a previously proposed action for the patient's out-of-band confirmation. It clearly separates this from upstream action_propose and downstream action_status, so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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 precondition: call only AFTER the patient has reviewed and agreed to the draft. It also instructs to use action_status to check approval and warns not to call action_commit again for the same action_id, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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