confirm_decision

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: confirmation fixes the scope externally, and the integrity hash/timestamp are created at declaration time, not at confirmation. It does not cover idempotency or error conditions, but adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each adding necessary information: workflow position, effect, parameter requirement, and timing. No filler 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 two-parameter confirm tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, timing, effect, and parameter requirement well. It lacks details on response format or idempotency, but such information is likely not critical for this operation.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explicitly stating that only dd_id is needed for the action, clarifying the role of the parameter and the irrelevance of hash/timestamp at this step.

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 function: 'Confirm a pending decision — marks the anchored declaration as settled.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing create_decision and noting that confirm requires only the dd_id, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage timing: 'Use after create_decision' and 'Call this after the action described in the DD has been executed.' It implies not to use before those steps, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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