confirm_done

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses what the mutation actually does ("updates the demo roster to match") and the deferred-verification mechanism ("the next Yahoo snapshot verifies it"). It does not discuss failure modes or the non-idempotent behavior flagged in the annotations, but the added context is genuine.

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 tight clauses with the precondition front-loaded ahead of the action and the verification note. No filler, though the parenthetical aside breaks the flow slightly.

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 workflow context and post-action verification are covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a mutating tool with two opaque, undescribed parameters and no output schema, the parameter semantics remain the missing piece.

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 0% and both parameters (ref, note) are required with no titles beyond their names. The description never explains what ref identifies or what note should contain, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 — "mark the proposal done" — and adds the real-world precondition (owner has made the move in Yahoo). This distinguishes it from the proposal-creation and step tools in the sibling list, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

"Only after the OWNER says they made the move in Yahoo" is an explicit, strong when-to-use condition and implies when not to use it (before the owner confirms). It does not, however, point to any alternative tool (e.g. record_owner_decision) or spell out the inverse case.

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