confirm_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a critical behavioral constraint: 'The token is single-use and time-limited.' However, it does not explain what happens after approval, whether the release is irreversible, or what errors occur with an expired/used token. This is some useful disclosure but not comprehensive.

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?

Two short sentences contain only relevant information: the primary action and the critical token constraint. The description is front-loaded with the verb and object, has no filler, and every sentence contributes. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the most important token behavior. It is missing details like where to obtain the token, what happens if the token is invalid, and whether the release can be undone. The definition is workable but leaves several operational questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lone 'token' parameter. It does so by explaining that the token is single-use and time-limited, which is essential semantic meaning beyond the schema's type string. It does not specify where the token comes from or its format, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.

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 states a specific action ('Approve and release'), a clear resource ('a payload'), and a precise scope ('the policy flagged for human approval'). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are about redacting, auditing, and LLM queries. It never resorts to tautology or restating the tool name.

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 phrase 'a payload the policy flagged for human approval' clearly indicates when to use the tool: only for payloads that are waiting on human approval. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated enough that no ambiguity exists. The context is clear and enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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