liveauth_mcp_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the dual-mode behavior (PoW vs Lightning), that polling is possible, and the outcome (JWT). However, it does not disclose failure modes, side effects like challenge invalidation, or retry semantics, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and the second provides a specific usage tip. No waste or 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?

The tool has 8 parameters and two distinct flows, with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and outcome but lacks details on error conditions, success/failure responses, and safety of repeated calls. It is adequate but not comprehensive for the complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds mode-specific guidance: 'call with just quoteId' for Lightning, implying PoW uses the other fields. This clarifies how to select parameters by mode, going beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 states a specific action: submitting a solved proof-of-work challenge or polling for Lightning payment to receive a JWT. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start (which likely initiates) and status (which likely checks overall status).

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?

It provides explicit guidance: for Lightning, call with just quoteId to check/poll payment status, and PoW requires the challenge-solution fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names and context make it inferable.

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