Confirm a Destructive Action

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the card is 'red, friction-heavy' and optionally requires re-typing a string. This provides behavioral context (UI, blocking) beyond what annotations convey, though it could be more explicit about blocking behavior or return value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by an optional detail. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for examples).

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?

The description does not explain what happens after the user confirms (e.g., return value, next steps). Given no output schema, this gap may leave an agent unsure about the tool's behavior beyond rendering.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description only adds that requireType is optional, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning beyond schema.

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 renders a confirmation card before irreversible actions, with specific examples (delete repo, drop database, force-push, wipe workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_board by being a confirmation step, not the action itself.

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 explicitly says to use the tool 'BEFORE any irreversible action', providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the usage is well-defined.

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