fedbrain_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: propagation of confirmation, incrementing confirm_count, updating local CKG confidence, and the 10-confirmation gold standard threshold. However, it omits potential failure scenarios (e.g., duplicate confirmation, invalid instance) and does not state idempotency or reversibility.

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: the first states the primary action, the second explains the effects and the gold standard threshold. No fluff or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the core functionality and the important gold standard rule, but without an output schema, it does not explain the return value or error handling. For a simple confirm action, this is largely sufficient but lacks edge case guidance.

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 includes descriptive parameter names and enum labels. The description adds no new meaning about the parameters themselves; it focuses on the overall action and effects. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Confirm' and the resource 'syndicated lesson', and further distinguishes the action by detailing the propagation mechanism (incrementing confirm_count, updating CKG, gold standard at 10). This is specific and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fedbrain_contribute or syndicate.

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 implies that this tool should be used after a lesson has worked for the user, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. It lacks a clear 'when-to-use' vs 'when-not-to-use' guidance, making it adequate but not strong.

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