confirm_order

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context about the two-step confirmation flow: HIGH-risk tools return a summary instead of executing, and this tool actually executes. It aligns with annotations and provides behavioral detail beyond 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?

The description is concise with two clear paragraphs and a list. Every sentence adds value: first describes the overall purpose, then explains the workflow, and finally defines the parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the confirmation flow and the role of this tool. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or invalid confirmation_id, but it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description defines the only parameter 'confirmation_id' as 'The confirmation_id returned by the HIGH-risk tool.' This adds crucial meaning that the schema lacks, fully compensating for low coverage.

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 executes a previously prepared HIGH-risk operation after review. It names specific tools that use this pattern (place_order, amend_order, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or get_server_time.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool: after a HIGH-risk tool returns a confirmation summary, and to call with the confirmation_id. It lists the tools that generate confirmations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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