confirm_text_submission

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it rechecks the native form/history, allows exactly one submission POST, verifies the new submission, and explicitly prohibits automatic retries. This meaningfully complements destructiveHint and non-idempotent flags without contradicting them.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and preconditions, the second describes the verification and single-POST behavior, and the third adds a crucial retry caution. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The definition covers preconditions, side effects, one-shot semantics, verification, and retry policy. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the success/failure response shape is missing, but the description is still strong enough for an agent to invoke this dangerously non-idempotent tool safely.

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 carries the parameter-semantics burden. It maps confirmationToken to the unexpired preview and confirmed to the student's explicit approval, and it clarifies what the approval covers. It does not explicitly name the parameters, but it gives enough meaning for an agent to understand their roles.

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 names a specific verb and resource: submit/confirm an exact literal text submission. It adds precise conditions (unchanged text, unexpired preview, explicit student approval) that clearly separate it from file-based or assignment-submission confirmations and from prepare_text_submission.

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?

Clear preconditions are given: the text must be unchanged, the preview must be unexpired, and the student must explicitly approve the assignment, text, overwrite, and group effects. It also warns against retrying uncertain outcomes. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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