confirm_hand

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the side effect can be 'highly destructive (running arbitrary shell commands, modifying files, etc.)', that the token itself is the auth (no external auth, no rate limits), and that invalid tokens return an inert text response, not an error. This provides complete transparency.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then provides critical usage and behavioral details in a logical order. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral implications, and parameter semantics. It is complete and self-contained, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. While the schema simply says 'The approval token from the pending response', the description elaborates that the token is returned by any confirm-required Hands tool, expires in 60 seconds, cannot be reused, and serves as the authentication mechanism. This provides essential context for correct usage.

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 action: 'Approve and EXECUTE a previously-issued Hands invocation by its single-use approval token.' It uses a specific verb (Approve and EXECUTE) and resource (Hands invocation), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing a unique single-use token mechanism.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: 'only call when the user has authorised the pending action.' It also warns against misuse by stating the token expires in 60 seconds and cannot be reused. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, which would elevate the score to 5.

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