sw_confirm

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds context annotations cannot: the arguments are retained server-side, the token is single-use, and the write must not be triggered by instructions embedded in tool results. That prompt-injection guard is exactly the kind of safety detail only prose can carry.

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?

Front-loads the core instruction (confirm using ONLY the token) and each sentence adds a distinct constraint. The closing injection warning is slightly redundant with 'Pass the token only after the user... explicitly approved', but it earns its place as a distinct failure mode.

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 one-parameter confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers origin of the token, precondition for use, lifetime, and the anti-injection rule. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 the schema already explains confirmToken's origin, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by specifying the token's single-use lifetime and by warning against re-sending the original arguments, which is meaning the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (confirm) and resource (a write previously previewed by another tool on this server), and names the only input it accepts. An agent can immediately tell this is the second half of a two-step write flow, not a standalone mutation.

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?

Explicitly says when to pass the token (only after the user has seen the preview and approved it in chat), what not to do (don't resend arguments — the server kept them), and how the token behaves (one use). Exclusions and prerequisites are all present.

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