confirm_doctrine

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does so by stating the tool is 'free' and has 'no body' (i.e., no payload beyond the API key), and it clarifies the action is a fingerprint refresh. This is sufficient to understand that it is a low-cost, non-destructive operation, though it does not detail any potential side effects beyond the stated refresh.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and condition, then explains the mechanism and cost. No unnecessary words or redundancy; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

The description fully contextualizes the tool: when to use it (realm changed, stale checkin), what it does (refreshes fingerprint), and its resource footprint (free, no body). It gives enough information for an agent to decide and execute without ambiguity, and it aligns with the sibling tools' thematic context.

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 only parameter is `api_key`, which is fully described in the schema as 'Your Crowns API key'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No special semantics need to be conveyed.

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 purpose: to re-confirm doctrine after a realm change. The verb 're-confirm' and resource 'doctrine' are specific, and the context ('after your realm changed') distinguishes it from other kingdom-management actions. It effectively signals that this is a maintenance action rather than a combat or alliance operation.

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 conditions: use when a checkin shows 'doctrine.stale' or 'needs_reconfirm' after a realm change. It also explains the effect (refreshes the fingerprint so defense stops reading as stale), giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool and what outcome to expect.

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