Confirm a governance decision with session ID and change reference to authorize or reject changes through the authoritative path.
The sole requires-governance→authoritative path (governance capability only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| changeRef | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, confirmation semantics, or return behavior. The word 'confirm' in the name suggests an approval action, yet the description does not state whether it is idempotent, reversible, or requires special auth.
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 extremely short, but brevity is not conciseness when it sacrifices meaning. The sentence is syntactically broken and jargon-laden, making it less clear than a simple restatement would be. It earns a 2 because at least it is not bloated or redundant, but it is severely under-specified.
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 (a confirmation/approval action with three parameters), the description provides no context about prerequisites, consequences, or relationship to the governance workflow. It does not mention whether a prior proposal or request must exist, what a successful confirmation returns, or how it differs from noetic.approve_request and noetic.commit.
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 has three parameters (decision, changeRef, sessionId) with no descriptions, and the description adds zero semantic value. It does not clarify what 'decision' should contain, what changeRef refers to, or how sessionId is used. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was responsible for explaining all three parameters and completely failed.
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 'The sole requires-governance→authoritative path (governance capability only)' is nearly incomprehensible and fails to state a clear verb and resource. It does not say what the tool does with a concrete action like confirm, approve, or validate. It provides no differentiation from siblings such as noetic.propose, noetic.approve_request, or noetic.grant.
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?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'governance capability only' hints at a scope restriction, but it does not explain what that means or which sibling tools handle non-governance flows. It never mentions exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.