whodb_platform_confirm

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description layers on real extra context: 5-minute token expiry, the caveat that the token does not itself prove human approval, and that uploads are read at execution time rather than snapshotted. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before executing a write.

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-loaded with the core action, then gated workflow, expiry, approval caveat, and upload detail in short sentences. Dense but each sentence carries distinct weight; only the trailing workspace sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain returns. It covers the lifecycle (token source, expiry), the approval precondition, and the upload timing nuance, which is complete for a confirm-and-execute gate.

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%, so both the token and the workspace object are already documented in the schema (including 'does not change the default host'). The description's workspace note largely restates the schema; its added value on the token (expiry, provenance) is behavioral rather than semantic, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb pair ('Confirm and execute') and a specific resource ('pending hosted WhoDB platform write'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like whodb_platform_pending or whodb_platform_action. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 conditions invocation: use the token from a prior write tool, and only call after the user has approved the pending preview. This is a clear when-to-call rule with an enforced workflow gate, leaving little to inference.

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