manus_task_confirm_action

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a mutation (confirming an action) and explains the triggering event condition. However, it does not disclose the outcome (e.g., whether the task proceeds, error scenarios) or any side effects beyond state change.

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 moderately concise, front-loading purpose and condition. Includes helpful examples but could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema. The description covers when to use and how to invoke, but does not describe the response, error states, or what happens after confirmation. Assumes knowledge of event structure.

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 0%. The description adds value by explaining event_id's source and input's required shape matching confirm_input_schema. However, task_id is merely listed in schema with no additional context.

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 clearly states 'Confirm a pending action' and specifies the exact condition for use (when a status_update event reports agent_status='waiting' with waiting_for_event_type != 'messageAskUser'). It is distinct from sibling tools like task_create or task_stop.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria and examples of how to construct input for different event types. Clearly differentiates the two common input shapes: {'accept': true} and {'action': 'select', 'client_id': '...'}.

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