auth_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the 10-minute signal window, the refusal condition if the signal is missing, the constraint that workOrigin must belong to the same signal, and explicitly that it 'does not read cookies.' It doesn't say what is returned or whether the recorded origins are reversible.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite, with no filler. Some phrasing is awkward (the embedded Korean label, 'terminal confirm command'), but every 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?

For a state-recording tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the failure mode, the optional-param constraint, and one explicit non-behavior ('does not read cookies'). Return values aren't described, but that is a minor omission given the tool's narrow scope.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: workOrigin must be part of the same human allow signal, tying an optional param to a runtime precondition the schema does not state.

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+resource: 'Record origins for one site' gated on a human allow signal. Clear enough to distinguish from read-oriented siblings, but it never names or contrasts auth_login/auth_open/auth_read/auth_act/auth_status, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 a clear precondition (a human allow signal within the last 10 minutes) and a sequencing rule ('use this after the terminal confirm command'), and notes the 이 사이트 허용 button path already confirms origins. It does not explicitly route against specific sibling tools, so it falls short of a full when/when-not with alternatives.

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