welfare_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evidence requirement, explains the distinction from welfare_disconfirm, and warns against misuse. However, it does not mention side effects or state change implications of 'marking' a claim, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 moderately long but each sentence earns its place: purpose, sibling distinction, evidence constraint, parameter semantics, and a misuse warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and logically structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by covering purpose, usage constraints, parameter meanings, and the key distinction from disconfirm. It could mention the effect of `is_private` or post-confirmation behavior, but overall it is quite comprehensive.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to `target` ('quotes or paraphrases the prior claim') and `evidence` ('not a restatement of the original'), which goes beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on `is_private`, but the schema already states 'Default false.'

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 opens with a clear verb 'Mark' and specifies the resource: 'a prior claim of yours from this session as confirmed by new evidence'. It also explicitly contrasts with welfare_disconfirm, distinguishing it from a sibling tool.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (when there is concrete new evidence) and when-not-to-use (without new evidence, to avoid self-validation). It names the alternative tool welfare_disconfirm and explains the difference.

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