confirm_order

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements. The example usage suggests a specific input format but does not explain what the tool does beyond confirming an order.

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 very brief (one sentence plus a code block). While it is front-loaded with purpose, it lacks structure and does not use space effectively to provide necessary details beyond a single example.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide enough context. Missing details include error handling, prerequisites, response format, and behavioral constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%. The description includes an example with real-looking values, but does not define what 'replyId' or 'messageIds' represent. The agent must infer semantics from the example, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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: manually confirming an order that requires confirmation. This verb+resource formulation is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_order or get_order_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as conditions when an order needs manual confirmation, or what to check before calling it. The description is silent on applicability context.

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