Confirm a mutating action

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds key behavioral details: single-use, time-limited, and bound to exact arguments. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage, though it does not detail mismatch behavior or side effects, which prevents a 5.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and add the binding constraint without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the relationship to invoke_tool. It omits details like how to pass the token to invoke_tool or expiration specifics, but given the simple scope, it is largely complete.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the supplied arguments must exactly match a later invoke_tool call, reinforcing the binding semantics beyond the schema.

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 issues a single-use, time-limited confirmation token for a mutating tool, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like invoke_tool by focusing on the confirmation step, and it clarifies that the token is bound to exact arguments.

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 implies the tool should be used before a mutating invoke_tool call, as the token must match that later call. It specifies the applicable case (mutating tools) but does not explicitly list when not to use it or reference alternative tools beyond the implied workflow.

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