confirm_draft

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

Goes beyond the annotations by naming the concrete irreversible consequence ('A removed entry can't be restored') and by qualifying the non-idempotency: a repeat call usually returns the earlier result, but after a server restart it would write the Draft again. That restart caveat is genuinely useful operational context. Minor gap: it does not restate what the response looks like, though an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and write ordering, then the preconditions and idempotency caveat in short, purposeful sentences. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation is fully covered: what it writes, where new entries land, irreversibility, the approval precondition, and the repeat-call edge case. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents draft_id as the value returned by draft_entries. The description adds no format or validation guidance beyond that, so this sits at the baseline.

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 resource: writing a Draft into the Food Diary, plus the internal ordering (new entries first, then changes). Combined with 'New entries go under the Draft's Meal and Diary Day,' an agent can tell this is the commit step, distinct from draft_entries which produces the Draft.

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?

Explicit gating condition: 'Call this only after the User explicitly approved this Draft in their latest message.' It also names the correct alternative path after a correction ('draft again and confirm the new Draft instead') and the one-shot rule ('Confirm each Draft once'), leaving nothing to inference.

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