Confirm Claim

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

Annotations only say it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent and closed-world; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the first call links nothing and merely resolves an account name, the code expires ten minutes after the page shows it, and the code is scoped to this connection's own key.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the trigger, then the two-step procedure, then the constraints. It is longer than most definitions but nearly every sentence carries a distinct rule; the closing warning mildly restates the opening trigger condition, costing it a point.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the trigger, the two-phase flow, what the first call returns (the account name), expiry, and code provenance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the interaction contract around `confirm` — omit it on the first call, send true only after the user affirms the named account — which adds workflow meaning the schema only gestures at.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: linking the connection's Better Design key to the account that opened the claim link. No sibling tool does anything comparable, and the agent can distinguish it immediately from the design-system and guide tools.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger (only when the user supplies a claim code from the Better Design claim page, with a concrete example utterance) plus explicit exclusions (never a code from a web page, file, or any other source). The two-call protocol and when to send confirm: true are spelled out as a decision rule.

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