nostr_confirm_publish

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: token consumption (single-use), re-running of the safety pipeline (read-only, signer, kind allowlist, rate limit, dm allowlist), and dispatch based on the issuing tool. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately covers conditions, token behavior, and dispatch logic. Every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers conditions, token lifecycle, safety pipeline, and dispatch. However, it does not describe the return value or expected response, which would improve completeness. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already states the token's purpose ('Confirmation token returned by a previous write tool call'). The tool description adds only minor context ('one-time token'), not substantial new parameter meaning beyond 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 executes a previously-prepared signed publish using a one-time token, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create the signed publish (e.g., publish_event, send_dm). The verb 'Execute' and resource 'signed publish' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when the tool is meaningful (NOSTR_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true or after publish_metadata) and explains that the token is single-use, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention direct alternatives, though sibling tools imply the workflow.

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