fedbrain_confirm

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

Without annotations, the description provides important behavioral details: it increments confirm_count, updates local CKG confidence, and mentions the gold standard at 10 confirmations. This goes beyond the input schema, but could be enriched with more specifics (e.g., idempotency, side effects).

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. 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?

Given the simple nature of a confirmation action and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effects, and a success condition. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what's in the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 the tool's purpose: confirming a syndicated lesson worked. It uses specific verbs and resources ('confirm', 'syndicated lesson', 'knowledge certificate') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fedbrain_search' or 'fedbrain_contribute' by focusing on the confirmation action.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (after a syndicated lesson) but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, given the context of siblings, the usage is reasonably clear.

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