Confirm Ecommerce Design

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the load and does well: it discloses that nothing is charged or submitted, that stale revision/digest are rejected, and that a human confirmation is required. It does not say what the confirmation result looks like or where the confirmation gates subsequent steps, leaving minor gaps against a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the gating condition, then the required inputs, then the host/revision rules. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the re-display-and-reconfirm rule restates the opening precondition slightly.

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 need not be described, and the mutation/guardrail behavior is well covered. What's missing is the lifecycle placement — that this sits between plan_ecommerce_design and submit_ecommerce_design — and the meaning of design_id.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that revision/digest must be the ones displayed this round, that confirmation_note is the user's confirmation statement, and that user_confirmed must be True. Only design_id and the 64-hex/pattern constraints on digest are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb (record/confirm) and resource (the ecommerce design plan), and immediately scopes it as '不收费、不提交', which implicitly separates it from submit_ecommerce_design. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must still infer the distinction.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('仅在用户明确确认当前商品事实、逐图文案与排版后'), the rejection cases ('旧稿/缺信息拒绝'), and a hard prohibition on the host confirming on the user's behalf. It also says any revision must be re-displayed and confirmed, and that payment authorization belongs to submission, not here.

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