confirm_print_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the state transition but does not mention side effects, permissions required, or whether the action is reversible. More transparency about what happens after confirmation would be beneficial.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in the first line, followed by a brief explanation and a properly formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what input is needed. It could be more complete by noting idempotency or failure cases, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning to the single parameter 'session_id' by stating 'The session_id to confirm.' With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides some context but lacks richer details like format or constraints.

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 and resource: 'Confirm that a recovery plan should proceed.' It specifies the state transition from 'awaiting_confirmation' to 'executing', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cancel_print_recovery' and 'complete_print_recovery'.

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 states the context: 'For plans requiring human confirmation, transitions from awaiting_confirmation to executing.' This implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, given sibling tool names, the usage is clear.

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