toggle_confirm_mode

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context: always_confirm shows a diff and requires approval, auto_apply applies changes immediately, and the mode is persisted to the database across sessions. It does not mention permission/auth requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and default are front-loaded, then modes are bulleted, then usage examples. The bilingual example list is somewhat verbose, but every block is functional and well ordered.

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 single-parameter config tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, per-mode behavior, persistence, and intent mapping. Complete enough to invoke correctly; minor gaps are only auth/permission details that are not essential here.

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 100% and the enum is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantic consequence of each value (safer diff-first vs. faster immediate apply), adding genuine meaning beyond the schema's terse mapping.

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 and resource ('Toggle update confirmation mode') and immediately clarifies the effect: 'Controls whether update tools ask for user confirmation before saving.' An agent can distinguish it from the many update_* siblings because it configures their confirmation behavior rather than editing content.

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 maps user utterances (including bilingual Vietnamese/English) to each mode value, e.g. 'don't ask' → auto_apply and 'always ask' → always_confirm. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs to pick the right enum value.

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