confirm_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the human-approval gate, but says nothing about irreversibility, external side effects (actually placing a phone call), failure behavior, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after it.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the approval precondition is covered. What remains thin is the parameter's meaning and the consequences of dialing (cost, irreversibility), which matter for an outward-facing action with no annotations.

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?

The single parameter call_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or clarifies that it must reference an existing draft. The phrase 'a drafted call' hints at the link, but nothing states the ID's origin or format.

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?

States a specific verb (Dial) and a specific resource (a drafted call), and the qualifier 'drafted' ties it to the draft_call sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from draft_call, rehearse_call, or get_call without opening a schema.

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?

'Only use after the user approved this specific draft' is an explicit, unambiguous gating condition that tells the agent both when to invoke it and when not to. This is exactly the kind of prerequisite an agent needs for a side-effecting action.

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