wais_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 that the tool polls for completion automatically if the challenge includes a resolution object. It implies a write/confirmation action but does not detail failure modes or side effects. The polling behavior adds transparency, raising the score above baseline.

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 fairly concise, with a clear header sentence followed by conditions and parameter explanations. It could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the 'Call after' condition more tightly, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with essential information.

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, the description covers the basic behavior, preconditions, and parameter sources. It mentions automatic polling, which is a key behavioral detail. The presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) supplements the completeness. Could mention error handling or what to do if the challenge is already confirmed, but the description is largely adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for both parameters in the Args section: site_url comes from agents.json, challenge_id from the 402 response. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists names and types.

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 confirms a high-risk action or completes a payment challenge, specifying the context: after wais_execute returns a 402 confirmation challenge and user approval. The verb 'confirm' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wais_execute (preceding step) and wais_discover/wais_register/wais_status (different purposes).

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 states when to call: after wais_execute returns a 402 confirmation challenge and the user has approved. Also mentions that if there was a payment link, payment must be completed first, and describes automatic polling if a resolution object exists. This provides clear context and conditions for use.

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