ksef_approval_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key behavior: it validates active status, expiry, and hash, then makes the invoice ready to send. It does not mention error behavior or idempotency, but the core state-changing behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: action, validation logic, and consequence. All sentences contribute and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter confirmation action, the description covers purpose, validation criteria, and the resulting state. It does not specify exact return values or error handling, but the low complexity and clear postcondition make it 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?

The single parameter approvalId is fully documented in the schema as 'ID approval request (UUID)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the exact action (confirm an approval request), the target resource (approval), and the postcondition (invoice ready to send). It is clearly distinct from the sibling ksef_approval_request, which creates the request.

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 implies the sequencing context: request approval first, then confirm it, then send the invoice. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but with only one approval-related sibling the use case is clear enough.

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