spec_coding_goal_confirmed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions confirming completion and proceeding to a new phase, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what happens to session state, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely updates workflow state.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key actions (confirm, set, proceed). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the three actions more clearly.

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 tool's likely role in a multi-phase workflow with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirming completion' means in practice, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with sibling tools. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively in this complex environment.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'set the feature_name' and referencing the goal, but doesn't provide additional context like parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as confirming completion of a feature goal, setting a feature name, and proceeding to requirements collection. This is clear but somewhat vague about what 'confirming completion' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like spec_coding_requirements_confirmed or spec_coding_design_confirmed that handle other phases.

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 implies usage at the end of a goal-setting phase before requirements collection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spec_coding_workflow_start or other phase-specific tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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