✓ Подтвердить отложенное действие

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it reveals that confirmation is one-shot (ID deleted after success), describes soft vs hard confirmation based on env variable, and notes current soft-confirmation status. No contradiction with annotations.

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: three sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then caveats. Minor verbosity in the Russian text, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message, action result, or error details). Given the stateful nature of confirmation, this omission leaves the agent unsure about the response format.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context: confirmation_id is the ID from the first call, and confirmation_secret is not used when the env variable is not set, which clarifies when the optional parameter is relevant.

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 executes a previously deferred action by confirmation_id, with added context that it requires human confirmation. It distinguishes from related tools like meta_cancel_action and meta_list_pending_actions by emphasizing the two-step guard flow.

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 explicitly states when to use (only after human confirmation) and provides behavioral guidelines: it's a server-side two-step guard, not cryptographic protection, and one-shot confirmation. However, it does not mention alternatives like cancel or list tools.

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