Confirm a booking (step 2 of 2)

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: prerequisite token liveness, invalidation when the confirmation page changed since prepare, and the exact condition under which 'confirmed' is reported. This tells the agent how failures manifest and how to interpret success, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then precondition, then failure modes, then success criterion. Every sentence carries distinct operational information; nothing is repeated from annotations or 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 destructive, non-idempotent confirmation tool with one opaque token and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, invalidation condition, failure modes, and the meaning of a success result – enough for an agent to call it safely and interpret the outcome.

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 0% and the single parameter (confirmation_token) is never described in format or shape beyond the implied 'live token' from prepare. It adds origin context but not the length/reuse/expiry semantics an agent needs for the one required parameter, so it neither compensates fully nor leaves the gap unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and effect ('Places the booking') and ties it explicitly to the artifact produced by the sibling prepare_booking, so the agent can distinguish this from the prepare step and from the read-only siblings without opening the schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Only call after the user has seen that summary and said yes') and names the alternative that produces the required input. Nothing about when-to-call is left to inference.

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