confirm

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden well: it discloses that the call blocks and waits, enumerates the three possible verdicts (APPROVED, DENIED, CHANGES REQUESTED), and describes the revise-and-reconfirm loop. The only minor omission is timeout or failure behavior, which does not undermine the core behavioral picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the requirement condition, then the return values and loop. Every sentence earns its place, though the final sentence is a run-on that packs the return enum and the retry instruction together and could be split for faster parsing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly takes on the return-value explanation and the mandatory-usage rule. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter tool; only the behavior on timeout, user dismissal, or no response is left unstated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real guidance beyond the schema: 'Show the exact text or action' tells the agent what content the summary must contain, which is a quality constraint the schema's own wording only partially implies.

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?

States a specific verb and mechanism: ask the user to approve an action in the Buddy bubble and wait for the answer. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like 'ask' and 'notify' because it is framed as a blocking approval gate returning a verdict.

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 enumerates the triggering conditions ('REQUIRED before sending messages, posting, buying, deleting, or changing settings') and gives the required follow-up path for CHANGES REQUESTED. An agent knows both when to call it and what to do with each outcome without inference.

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