nex_confirm_ip_order

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing the exact interaction model: human must click Approve, cannot be automated, returns completed=false, and the specific outcomes (rejected, expired, no_operator) that require specific actions. This is critical behavioral context not captured by openWorldHint/destructiveHint.

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 description is dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, UI behavior, non-automatability, immediate return, polling instruction, and failure handling. It is structured logically and not verbose.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (completed=false) and the necessary follow-up (polling). It also covers failure outcomes and proper agent behavior. For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally thorough.

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% for the single parameter intentId, with a clear description 'intentId returned by nex_quote_ip_order'. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond that, so the schema carries the semantic weight. This meets the baseline.

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 specific purpose: 'Ask the user to approve a quoted IP order' and distinguishes it from siblings like nex_quote_ip_order and nex_get_ip_order_status. The verb+resource ('approve a quoted IP order') is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: opens a payment confirmation dialog, requires human action, returns immediately, and must be polled. It also gives clear alternatives/next steps and explicitly states what NOT to do on failure (no retry, no duplicate quote), directing the user to ask the user instead.

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