MCP Action Firewall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'paused action' implying stateful blocking, but does not disclose what happens upon confirmation (resumption? execution?), error behavior for invalid codes, or security implications. Adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded with critical condition 'ONLY when'. Every word earns its place: 'correct' signals validation, 'approval' signals authorization purpose, 'paused action' signals stateful context. No redundancy.

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?

Appropriate for a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema. Describes the trigger condition and intent adequately. However, given zero annotations and the security-sensitive 'firewall' domain, it could disclose success/failure outcomes or side effects (e.g., 'resumes blocked operation').

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 coverage is 100% (otp parameter fully documented). The description adds semantic qualifiers 'correct' and 'approval' to the code, reinforcing validation requirements, but does not elaborate on format constraints or input sourcing beyond the 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 uses specific verb 'confirm' with resource 'paused action' and scope (requires 4-digit approval code). It clearly distinguishes this confirmation tool from unrelated siblings like 'echo' or 'get-sum' by specifying the unique authorization context.

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?

Contains explicit trigger condition with 'Call this tool ONLY when', clearly stating the prerequisite (user provides code) and context (paused action). Lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance or mention of what to do if the code is incorrect, hence not a 5.

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