Confirm dangerous command execution

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds the 'dangerous' qualifier which reinforces the destructive nature, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like what happens after confirmation, whether confirmation is reversible, or what specific dangers are involved. The description aligns with but doesn't significantly expand beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core concept and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. For a simple confirmation tool, this brevity is appropriate.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after confirmation, what gets executed, how to obtain the confirmation_id, or what the dangerous command actually is. Given the destructive nature and workflow context implied by the tool name, more guidance about the confirmation process and its consequences 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (confirmation_id and confirm) with their types and basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning about what a confirmation_id represents, how it's obtained, or the implications of setting confirm to true versus false. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema provides complete parameter documentation.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this confirmation step is required, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'execute_command'. There's no indication of workflow context or sequencing with other tools.

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