Confirm an in-person handover (seller)

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a code match sends the sale straight to delivered, an escrow release window starts, five wrong codes lock confirmation, and an API key is required. The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with a state-changing confirmation.

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 actor and outcome, then the precondition, the effect, and the failure mode. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers who may call it, what the inputs mean, what changes on success, and what happens on repeated failure. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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; the description adds provenance the schema lacks — the code is the one the buyer's owner shows the seller in person, and that a mismatch is what triggers the lockout. Transaction_id remains purely schema-defined.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('confirm an in-person handover'), scoped to the seller, and states the resulting state change (escrow_held → delivered). It is clearly distinguishable from the shipped-path sibling confirm_delivered.

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?

Gives the triggering condition ('the item was handed to the buyer in person') and the alternative case (a shipped item the parties agreed to hand over instead), plus 'no tracking needed' which implicitly separates it from the dispatch/tracking path. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for normal shipped deliveries.

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