conferma_modifica_in_corso

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral value: it discloses a non-obvious side effect (site cache invalidation) and explains why it is required ('altrimenti la modifica non si vedrebbe online'), which matters because purga_cache_sito exists as a separate sibling. Gaps remain around error behavior with no pending draft and whether the pending state is cleared afterwards.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical rationale for cache invalidation earns its place. The '(click su "Aggiorna")' UI hint is mildly extraneous but small.

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 zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action and the cache side effect but omits the post-state (is the pending modification consumed?) and failure modes, which an agent needs to decide whether a retry or an annulla_* call is appropriate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Salva'/'conferma') and resource ('la modifica lasciata in sospeso') and explicitly ties itself to the prepara_* staging tools, so an agent can place it in the two-phase write flow. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling annulla_modifica_in_corso, which is the one nearby alternative an agent could confuse it with.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'la modifica lasciata in sospeso da un tool prepara_*' tells the agent this is the commit step after a staging call, but it never says what happens if no modification is pending, nor does it name annulla_modifica_in_corso as the branch for discarding instead.

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