albyhub_confirm_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, and it does: the token is 'consumed (single use)' and the safety pipeline re-runs. This gives important context about irreversibility and validation, going well beyond minimal descriptions.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and add necessary conditions and side effects without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it explains what the tool does, when it applies, and the key behavioral fact (token consumption). No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the token ('Confirmation token from a previous non-GET proxy_request'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds extra meaning by noting the token is one-time and tied to a previously-prepared request, enhancing the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('previously-prepared non-GET request'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on confirming/executing an already-prepared request, not on initiating proxy calls or reading node data.

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?

Explicitly states the requirement 'Only meaningful when ALBYHUB_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true' and implies use after receiving a token from a previous proxy_request. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool (albyhub_proxy_request) or state when not to use it beyond the condition.

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