confirm_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies this is a mutation tool (confirmation changes state), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It adds some context about the trigger condition, but lacks details on outcomes or error handling.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and parameter source, the second provides precise usage timing. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple confirmation action), 1 parameter with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter origin, but lacks details on return values or error behavior that would be helpful for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'nonce' parameter fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning it's 'from a previous payment request' and '6-character', but these details are already implied or stated in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Confirm a pending payment') and resource ('using the nonce code from a previous payment request'), distinguishing it from siblings like pay_invoice or verify_l402_payment by focusing on confirmation rather than initiation or verification.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this after a payment tool returns requiresConfirmation=true with a nonce'), providing clear context and prerequisites without misleading information about alternatives.

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