spec_coding_design_confirmed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'confirm' and 'proceed', suggesting a state transition or workflow step, but does not clarify if this is a read-only check, a mutation that updates status, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's action. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'confirmation' entails, the expected outcome, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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%, with both parameters ('session_id' and 'feature_name') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as how they relate to the confirmation process. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose ('Confirm the completion of the design document and proceed to the task planning phase'), which is clear but vague. It uses a verb ('Confirm') and resource ('design document'), but does not specify what 'confirm' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed', making it less specific.

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 after design document completion and before task planning, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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