arc_passport_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains the legacy-flow ordering dependency, the deadline, and the split from the buy path. It omits what happens on success/failure, whether the call is idempotent, and any gas/permission notes, so it falls short of full behavioral coverage.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and precondition, and the alternative path is a trailing qualifier rather than clutter. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter completion call with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the flow context, deadline, and routing alternative an agent needs. It stops short of describing return values or error/deadline behavior, which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, including that tx is the register() hash and slug is the 12-character draft id. The description restates 'draft slug' and 'transaction hash' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (finish) and resource (passport started in the old flow) and names the sibling it is not (arc_passport_buy for new passports). An agent can distinguish it from arc_passport_draft and arc_passport_buy without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('after the register() transaction from the old flow'), a cutoff date ('before 1 Oct 2026'), and a named alternative with a price for the other path ('New passports are bought with arc_passport_buy ($0.99)'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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