nwc_confirm_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is single-use/consumed and that safety checks (budget, allowlist) are re-run. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the bare action. It could also mention failure modes or idempotency, but what is present is substantive.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and object, and the second provides key conditions and behavioral traits. Excellent front-loading and structure.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage condition, token lifecycle, and safety re-check. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but given its simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. A 5 would require more detail on expected outcomes.

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 explains the token parameter as 'the confirmation token returned by a previous spend tool call' with 100% coverage. The description adds the adjective 'one-time' and clarifies token consumption, but this is more behavioral than parameter-specific. The description does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 payment using a one-time token, which distinguishes it from siblings like nwc_pay_invoice that initiate new payments. The verb 'execute' and resource 'previously prepared payment' 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 notes the tool is only meaningful when NWC_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true, giving a clear condition for use. It also implies the workflow: after a spend tool call returns a token, this tool confirms it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when *not* to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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