fedbrain_confirm

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It explains propagation, counter increment, local CKG update, and the gold standard condition. This is comprehensive for a simple confirmation 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 three succinct sentences, all valuable: first states purpose, second explains mechanism, third sets success criterion. No redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main effects and outcome. It lacks mention of idempotency or error states, but is still relatively complete for a simple confirmation 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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Confirm') and the specific resource ('syndicated lesson from the global commons'). It explains the effect (propagates confirmation, increments count, updates local confidence, gold standard threshold), distinguishing it from siblings like 'fedbrain_contribute'.

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 usage for reporting success of a lesson through the outcome enum, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use. No direct comparison with sibling tools or exclusion cases.

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