Confirm action

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, idempotent action; the description adds the meaningful guarantee that the action 'runs exactly once' and that a needs_confirmation reply is required as input. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences carry the essential action, the execution guarantee, and the required input provenance. Every phrase earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, idempotency annotation, and clear precondition, the description covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly. Naming reject_action as the alternative for declining would have made it fully complete.

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 the parameter description already states 'The action_id from a needs_confirmation reply.' The tool description repeats that same information, so it adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Approves'), a clear resource ('a waiting action'), and a precise behavioral guarantee ('runs exactly once'). It also tells the agent where to get the required identifier, distinguishing it from the sibling reject_action without needing to open the 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?

The description gives clear context for when to call this tool: when an action is waiting for confirmation and the action id comes from a needs_confirmation reply. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the precondition is unambiguous.

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