run_tw_corrections_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing that artifacts are verified against the server-issued run digest, caller-asserted confirmation fields are ignored, and unapproved answers fail closed. This is security-relevant behavioral context that an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveats are packed into a compact second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 complex two-stage acceptance tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation context: inputs, stage relationship, verification behavior, and failure semantics. It does not describe the return value or side effects, but the verifiability and fail-closed details give the agent enough to invoke it 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains that analysis_artifacts are verified against the run digest and that answers are human-provided with caller-asserted confirmation fields ignored. However, it does not specify the structure of analysis_artifacts or answers, and run_id is only described in the schema, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Run'), a specific stage ('stage 2 Taiwan corrections response'), and clear inputs ('analysis artifacts and human answers'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling run_tw_corrections_analysis, which is the stage-1 counterpart, and from other acceptance tools.

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?

The phrase 'stage 2' and the reference to artifacts from analysis make clear this tool runs after run_tw_corrections_analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the two-stage framing provides adequate contextual guidance.

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