gage_pair_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the exact success condition, the failure behavior ('adds nothing and does not say what the right answer was'), and the crucial semantic that the key is added UNCONFIRMED so an agent echo cannot itself constitute confirmation. It also explains where confirmation actually occurs (human comparison in the Gage app banner). This is the kind of disclosure annotations could not provide.

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 purpose and the hard precondition, then the contract and follow-up. Every sentence is doing work, though the 'a key knows its own word-pairs' rationale is slightly discursive for a tool description.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what makes it succeed or silently fail, what state it leaves behind (UNCONFIRMED), and what the agent must tell the user next. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by pinning `echo` to 'the four word-pairs exactly as gage_pair_start returned them' — a strictness constraint the schema's 'read back' phrasing does not convey. `pairing_id` remains undocumented in both places, keeping it below a 5.

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 ('Complete adding a pairing') and immediately scopes it against the sibling that produces the input ('exactly as gage_pair_start returned them'). An agent can distinguish this from gage_pair_start without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly frames this as the second half of a two-step flow with gage_pair_start and gives explicit post-call guidance ('tell your user to open the app and finish from the banner'). It doesn't spell out when NOT to call it (e.g. before gage_pair_start), but the echo precondition effectively encodes that.

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