confirm_action

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

The description states this tool finalizes a pending write action including 'deleting a resource,' which is inherently destructive, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. The extra details about user confirmation and token expiry are useful but cannot overcome the contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant filler, front-loaded main purpose (what it finalizes) before usage conditions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter confirmation tool, the description covers the call condition, negative condition, and token handling. No output schema is present, but return value descriptions are not essential for correct invocation here; still, a mention of expected response could make it fully complete.

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%: the schema already documents 'token' with exactness requirements. The description repeats 'Pass the token exactly as it was returned,' adding no new semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb ('finalizes') and a specific resource ('a pending write action ... previously staged by another tool'). It distinguishes this from all sibling read/write tools by clarifying it is the confirmation step, not the operation itself.

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 ('only after the user has explicitly confirmed the action summary') and when not to ('If the user declined, do not call this tool'), including the fallback behavior (token expires automatically).

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