hands.confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses potentially destructive side effects, 60-second token expiry, non-reusability, token-as-auth, absence of rate limits, and the inert text response for invalid/expired/consumed tokens.

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 dense but well-organised: purpose first, then the safety warning, expiry/reuse constraints, auth model, and failure behavior. Every clause adds value; the only cost is length, which is justified for a destructive execution 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers authentication, expiration, failure behavior, and side effects. The only real gap is that it never explicitly states what a successful confirmation returns, relying on the reader to infer the underlying Hand's output.

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% and already labels the token. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: single-use, 60-second lifetime, and returned by any confirm-required Hands tool. This deepens the agent's understanding of the parameter without changing its syntax.

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 action (approve and execute), a precise resource (a previously-issued Hands invocation), and the key constraint (single-use approval token). This clearly distinguishes it from informational sibling tools like hands.list or hands.reload.

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?

Explicitly says the tool should only be called when the user has authorised the pending action, which doubles as a when-not. It also explains exactly where the token comes from and that confirm-required tools issue it, giving the agent the full triggering context.

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