confirm_draft

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation ([WRITE]) that changes state, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It also reveals a side effect: optionally saving a YAML template to ~/.vmware/workflows/, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and efficient, with clear structure (overview, usage, args, returns). Some redundancy (repeating run_workflow call) but overall every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, and there is no output schema to rely on. It could mention the precondition that the workflow must be in DRAFT state, but the rest is sufficiently complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: workflow_id is 'The draft workflow ID to confirm' and save_as_template is 'If True, save to ~/.vmware/workflows/'. This adds functionality beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: confirming a draft workflow and transitioning it from DRAFT to PENDING. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_draft and run_workflow by specifying the exact state change and subsequent execution.

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 when to use ('once the user has approved') and when to use update_draft instead ('if anything still needs changing'). Also provides sequencing guidance by mentioning that run_workflow() should be called after confirmation.

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