batch_confirm_warnings

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the action but does not disclose whether confirmation is destructive, reversible, or requires special permissions. No mention of side effects or limits.

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 very concise (4 Chinese characters) and front-loaded. It wastes no words but could be more informative for English-speaking agents. However, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 batch operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the overall workflow, what 'confirm' entails, or how the response looks. More context would help the agent use the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify the format of the 'ids' array or the purpose of 'note' and 'userId' further.

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 '批量确认报警' (batch confirm warnings) clearly indicates the action (batch confirm) and the resource (warnings). It is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'acknowledge_alarm' or 'archive_all_warnings', which might overlap in purpose.

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'acknowledge_alarm' or 'get_warnings'. There is no indication of prerequisites, e.g., which warnings are eligible for confirmation, or what happens after confirmation.

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