confirm_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly conveys that this is a mutating execution, controlled by a single-use token, and that the executed parameters were already fixed at prepare time. It does not explicitly describe failure modes or irreversible real-world effects, but the human-approval requirement and single-use constraint cover the most important safety 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?

Two sentences, tightly written, with the core action front-loaded and the critical approval condition immediately after. Every phrase adds value and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter confirmation tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action, the prerequisite human approval, the scope of actions, the single-use token, and the immutability of the prepared parameters. This is complete enough for an agent to select and call confirm_action correctly alongside many prepare_* 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?

There is only one parameter, confirmation_token, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by labeling it a 'single-use token' and by explaining that the executable parameters are stored at prepare time, so the token is the only thing this call accepts. It could have added where the token comes from, but the meaning is sufficiently clear.

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 a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('previously prepared action') and enumerates the action types: order, cancel-all, rebalance, bot, or investment. The 'STEP 2 of 2' framing and reference to prepare_* tools clearly distinguishes this tool from the prepare_* sibling tools.

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 instructs to only call after the human user has explicitly approved the summary shown by the prepare_* tool. It also clarifies that nothing can be changed at this stage, which tells the agent to return to the prepare_* step if any adjustment is needed.

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