Execute Approved Operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals crucial traits: the token is user-bound, one-time, and short-lived, and the tool never grants approval. However, it does not explicitly state potential side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive) or error behavior, which would add further transparency.

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 English text is concise, with two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and usage. The addition of a Chinese translation line is redundant for an AI agent but does not harm clarity; it merely adds a bit of length. Overall, it is well-structured and free of filler.

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 is fully contextual. It explains the exact flow (pending operation, web preview approval, token constraints), the precondition, and the tool's non-approval role. There are no significant gaps that would hinder correct invocation.

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 describes confirmToken as 'One-time token returned by the pending operation,' but the description adds meaningful semantics: the token is user-bound, short-lived, and must belong to the same signed-in user who approved the preview. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/role information.

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: 'Continue a pending sensitive operation after the same signed-in user approved its web preview.' This specifies the verb (continue), the object (pending sensitive operation), and the condition (after user approval), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_complete_device_login that handle login flows, not operation execution.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call it only after the user says the confirmation page was approved' and 'This tool never grants approval itself.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition and a when-not-to-use (it does not approve), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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