sassy_shell_confirm

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies that tokens are single-use, expire after 60s, are bound to command+shell+cwd, that HIGH-tier tokens require confirm_phrase matching, and that replays against different commands are rejected. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact paragraph on token behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, token lifecycle, confirmation requirement, and security constraints. Return values are presumably covered by the output schema, so no additional detail is needed.

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 compensates well. It explains the token's properties (single-use, expiry, binding) and the confirm_phrase requirement (only for HIGH-tier tokens, must match original phrase). It does not explicitly map these to parameter names, but the meaning is clear and helpful.

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 starts with 'Execute a sassy_shell command previously returned as confirmation_required,' which clearly states the action (execute), the resource (a sassy_shell command), and the prerequisite context (previously returned as confirmation_required). This distinguishes it from the sibling sassy_shell tool and leaves no ambiguity about when to use it.

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 implicitly signals usage after receiving a confirmation_required response, and details token binding and confirmation requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the purpose is clear enough to infer correct usage.

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