interactive_stage_confirmation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only hints at fallback behavior without detailing what the tool does (e.g., prompts user, returns confirmation), side effects, or prerequisites.

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 very short (one sentence), but its brevity sacrifices clarity. It could be expanded to be more useful without becoming verbose.

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 (3 params, output schema present), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with the user, or how it relates to sibling tools like confirm_authoring_stage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (run_id, stage, stage_summary). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type and required status.

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 'Prefer MCP elicitation for stage confirmation, with chat fallback when unsupported' uses jargon (MCP elicitation) and does not clearly state what the tool does. It vaguely indicates confirmation of a stage but lacks a clear 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?

The description mentions preferring MCP elicitation with chat fallback, which implies a usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like confirm_authoring_stage or reopen_authoring_stage.

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