execute_confirmed_action

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-idempotent, and a write. The description adds meaningful safety context beyond annotations: 'exactly one' and 'never retry.' This highlights the non-idempotent nature and the importance of not repeating the call, which is critical for a financial write. However, it does not elaborate on specific consequences or failure modes, so it does not fully exceed the annotation burden.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It states the action, the precondition, and the critical safety rule without waste. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 a 2-param schema, no output schema, and conservative annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to call it, and the key safety constraint. It does not describe return values or error handling, but given the tool's narrow scope and the presence of annotations, this is not a significant gap. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'user_confirmation' is the exact preview phrase ('Call only after the user supplies the exact preview phrase'), but it does not explicitly map this to the parameter. 'confirmation_id' is left unexplained; the connection to a 'prepared financial write' is inferential. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant ambiguity for both parameters.

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 function: 'Execute exactly one prepared financial write.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prepare_direct_invoice' and 'cancel_prepared_action' by making the execution step explicit. The verb 'Execute' and resource 'prepared financial write' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear precondition: 'Call only after the user supplies the exact preview phrase.' It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'never retry.' While it does not name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, the context implies this is the final step after preparation, distinct from preparation and cancellation siblings. This is strong contextual guidance without listing alternatives.

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