confirm_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'SAFETY GATE' and 'confirm' – it does not explain what happens when called (e.g., whether it blocks, prompts a user, logs evidence, or returns a result). It does not describe side effects, error conditions, or the outcome of a denial. This is a significant gap for a safety-critical tool.

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 a single, compact sentence with the key phrase 'SAFETY GATE' front-loaded. Every word earns its place: it identifies the tool's role, its purpose, and the exact calling context. No fluff 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values, error behavior, and what the agent should do after calling it. It says nothing about what confirm_action returns (e.g., success/failure), whether it requires user interaction, or how the agent should proceed if confirmation is denied. For a mandatory safety gate with 4 required parameters, this is critically incomplete.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 50%, the description must compensate for undefined parameters. It adds some context: 'refs' and 'pages flagged with danger_zone' give meaning to `ref` and `page_id`, and 'dangerous action' ties to `action`. However, it does not explain `session_id` at all, and the schema already covers `ref` and `action`. Partial compensation but not complete.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'confirm a dangerous action before executing it.' It also specifies the exact trigger condition ('before clicking refs on pages flagged with danger_zone') and lists the relevant categories (financial/medical/legal/auth). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling page_* and session_* tools, which are about navigation, inspection, or input, not confirmation.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Call this BEFORE clicking refs on pages flagged with danger_zone (financial/medical/legal/auth).' This is clear and actionable. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'do not call for normal pages'), so it falls short of a 5.

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