upload_file_confirm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation step and that the upload is executed upon calling this tool. However, it does not mention any side effects, whether the operation is irreversible, permissions required, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, consisting of three short, clear sentences. It is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains the mechanism, third describes the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow. However, it omits return value/status, error cases, and prerequisite that upload_file must be called first. While the token explanation is good, the lack of post-call behavior details leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its single required parameter 'token'. The description adds meaning by stating: 'The confirmation token returned by upload_file().' This clarifies the parameter's source and purpose, compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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: 'Confirm and execute a pending file upload.' It specifies the two-step flow where upload_file returns a token when KILN_CONFIRM_UPLOAD is enabled, and this tool uses that token. This effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool upload_file.

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 when to use this tool (when a token from upload_file is available) and mentions the enabling condition (KILN_CONFIRM_UPLOAD). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like direct upload without confirmation. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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