confirm_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: 'Propagates visibility to all modules inside the section' (side effect) and 'Idempotent' (repeatability). This goes beyond the basic action, though it does not mention prerequisites like whether the section must already be in preview state or potential failure modes.

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 three concise sentences, each contributing unique information: the core action, the propagation effect, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits guidance on parameter usage (especially resource_ids) and does not distinguish it from similar publish tools. It does cover the essential behavior and side effects, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed to be fully complete.

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 mentions 'section' which maps to section_id, but does not explain course_id or resource_ids at all. The optional resource_ids parameter could be used to restrict propagation, but the description says 'all modules' without addressing this ambiguity. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 a specific action: 'Make a previewed section visible to students.' It specifies the resource (section) and the effect (visible to students), and adds propagation to all modules, which distinguishes it from broader publish tools. This is a strong verb+resource statement.

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 usage context is implied: this tool is used when you have a previewed section and want to make it visible. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools like publish_preview or release_section, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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