guardentry_confirm_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary effect—promoting a policy from inferred to confirmed and making it active—but does not mention reversibility, permissions, or other side effects. This adds value but leaves some gaps, so a 3.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and effect, the second provides usage context. No redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool, the description covers purpose and when to use it. It lacks mention of return behavior or error conditions, but these are not essential given the simplicity and absence of an output schema. Overall adequate and mostly complete.

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 schema already covers the only parameter with a clear description ('UUID of the policy to confirm'), and the tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 confirms an inferred agent policy and makes it active, with the state transition from 'inferred' to 'confirmed'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'guardentry_update_policy' or 'guardentry_get_agent_policy', using a specific verb and resource.

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?

It specifies the usage scenario: 'Use after reviewing an auto-generated policy to promote it from inferred to confirmed.' This gives clear context and implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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