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 delivers: token is single-use, tokens expire after 60 seconds, side effects mirror the underlying Hand and can be highly destructive, the token itself is the auth (no external auth, no rate limits), and invalid/expired/consumed tokens yield an inert text response rather than an error. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers prerequisites, risk, and failure semantics in four tight sentences. No filler; every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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, no-output-schema tool this covers what an agent needs: prerequisite (a pending approval token), timing (60s expiry), risk profile (destructive potential), auth model (token is auth), and failure behavior (inert text, not error). Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single token parameter, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the token's origin (returned by confirm-required tools), its lifetime (60s), and its single-use nature, all of which affect how and when the parameter is passed.

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 pair (approve and EXECUTE) plus the exact resource (a previously-issued Hands invocation) and the mechanism (single-use approval token). This clearly separates it from siblings like hands_list and hands_reload, which do not execute anything.

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?

Gives the source of the token (any confirm-required Hands tool) and the condition for calling: 'only call when the user has authorised the pending action.' The when-not case is implied by that constraint. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but none exists for this execution step, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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