aureon_confirm_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the verification rule ('verified only when the signature recovers to the session wallet') and an important negative side effect ('Does not broadcast'), which tells an agent this is not an on-chain action. It omits auth/prerequisite requirements and what occurs on a failed recovery, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the verification condition, and the absence of broadcast. The action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover behavior and result. It covers the verification rule and non-broadcast nature but says nothing about what is returned, idempotency, or what happens when the signature fails to recover, leaving gaps for a confirmation-style mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented there (message, reportId, signature), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format or coupling details beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema is 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 names a specific verb (store) and resource (a wallet signature for a prepared report), making the operation distinct from siblings like aureon_prepare_report, aureon_get_report and aureon_list_reports. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable from the phrase 'prepared report' rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for a prepared report' implies this is the follow-up step to aureon_prepare_report, and the schema's 'Exact message returned by prepare' reinforces the sequencing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this, no named alternative, and no exclusion of the other confirm_* tools (restoration, objective registry, execution settlement).

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