request_action_confirmation

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It only states 'request confirmation' but does not explain whether the tool blocks, returns control, or how the action is handled post-confirmation. The interactive nature is implied but not detailed.

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 a single, short sentence that is efficient and to the point. It contains no unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., explaining the confirmation flow) could improve clarity without adding verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's purpose as an interactive confirmation step, the description lacks detail on post-confirmation behavior, return values, and how it integrates with other tools. The schema and absence of output schema increase the need for richer context.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with clear descriptions and types. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance for the parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 the tool requests confirmation before applying research-based changes. It is concise and distinguishes the tool from siblings that perform actions directly. However, it could be more specific about what form the confirmation takes (e.g., user prompt).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_basic_content_masking or incorporate_research. The description does not indicate exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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