confirm_ci_update

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: the token lifecycle (single-use, 5-minute expiry) and that it executes a previewed update, which aligns with the idempotent hint.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary of the action, then prerequisites, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 the simple one-parameter tool and existing output schema, the description fully covers the execution flow, token constraints, and expected results, making it complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the token parameter as 'The confirmation token from preview_ci_update', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare title.

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 executes a previously previewed CI update, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like preview_ci_update and confirm_ci_create by explicitly requiring a token from preview_ci_update.

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 prerequisites: Must call preview_ci_update first and use the returned token. It also notes the token is single-use and expires after 5 minutes, giving clear usage context and when-not-to-use alternatives.

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