confirm_scars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required sequence, the need to address all scars, and the behavioral expectations for each decision (e.g., past-tense evidence for APPLYING, risk acknowledgment for REFUTED). It lacks details on side effects like database updates or return values, but covers key behaviors sufficiently for a confirmation action.

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 concise sentences: the first states the function, the second specifies the required context, and the third explains decision options. No wasted words, highly front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter with nested subfields) and lack of output schema, the description covers the critical usage instructions (required after recall, address all scars), but omits what the tool returns or whether it mutates state. It is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds some context (e.g., the three decision meanings) that reinforces schema descriptions, but does not provide new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'Minimum 50 characters'). The description is helpful but not essential beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Confirm', 'surfaced scars') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like recall and reflect_scars by stating it is required after recall before consequential actions. The three decision types are explained explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the tool ('REQUIRED after recall() before consequential actions') and that 'Each recalled scar must be addressed.' It provides context for each decision option but does not mention when not to use it or compare directly to alternatives like reflect_scars, which limits the score to 4.

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