confirm_naming

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false) but say nothing about errors or side effects. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a 409 means the job exists but is no longer awaiting naming, and it explicitly scopes out voice-database enrollment.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then error semantics, then scope exclusion. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations that cover the safety hints, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the 409 condition and the explicit non-enrollment boundary. It does not say what a successful response looks like, but that gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 100% and already explains both jobID and the label-to-name mapping, including 'Read the labels from get_naming first.' The description reinforces the diarization-label framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('confirm the real names behind a job's diarization labels') and the consequence ('so it can finish'), which tells the agent exactly what effect the call has. It is clear but never names the sibling it pairs with (get_naming), so discrimination from skip_naming rests on the schema rather than the description.

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?

Usage is implied by 'a job's diarization labels' and the 409 note, which tells the agent the call only applies while a job is awaiting naming. There is no explicit 'call this after get_naming' or 'use skip_naming instead if' guidance in the description itself.

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