Confirm a rule is still right

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it names the single field mutated (last-confirmed date), asserts nothing else changes and the rule is never disabled/edited/deleted, confirms the effect on list_rules output, states it is safe to repeat (corroborating idempotentHint), and describes the error case for an unknown id.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: what changes, what does not, repeat safety, usage precondition and return shape. The core effect is front-loaded in the first sentence with no 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?

Despite having no output schema and a mutation annotation profile, the description covers the mutation scope, side effects, repeat behavior and the return/error shape ('confirmation with the date, or an error when the id is unknown'). An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the id parameter is fully documented there, including format example. The description only implies id semantics via 'error when the id is unknown', adding no syntax or resolution guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Record that the owner re-checked one standing rule') and the precise effect (last-confirmed date becomes now, clearing the review-overdue flag from list_rules). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_rules and add_rule, which read rules or create them.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only after the owner agreed the rule still holds') and an explicit when-not with the alternative path ('to stop following a rule, the owner turns it off in the Rules page'). No inference required from the agent.

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