Confirm action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does flag the most important trait: the target action is destructive and is only being executed now after approval. It omits other consequential behavior — whether the confirmation is single-use/expiring, what authorization is required, and whether the effect is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive nature and the required key stated up front, and no filler. Slightly terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core (destructive, awaiting approval, keyed by confirmation_id). It falls short on what the agent should expect after the call and on the lifecycle constraints of a pending confirmation, which matter more here because no structured fields cover them.

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 confirmation_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter name but adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail beyond what the schema's own 'id returned by the original tool call' already provides.

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 names a specific verb (executes) and a specific resource (a destructive action awaiting approval), plus the mechanism (by confirmation_id). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling list_pending, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: you call this once an action is 'waiting for approval' and you hold its confirmation_id. However, it never states that you should obtain the id via list_pending or the original tool call, nor any when-not-to-use condition (e.g. expired or already-confirmed requests).

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