Confirm an AutoWhisper action

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

The description explicitly labels the action as 'destructive', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description falls short of fully disclosing other important behaviors such as reversibility, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential usage instructions efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description omits any mention of return values or success/failure indicators. For a simple confirmation tool, this may be acceptable, but the lack of output information leaves the agent guessing about the tool's side effects.

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 both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal value: it tells that message_id comes from autowhisper_cmo and that decision is 'yes' or 'no', which is already evident from the enum. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Approve or decline a destructive action the CMO asked you to confirm'. It specifies the verb (confirm) and the resource (AutoWhisper action), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool autowhisper_cmo by mentioning 'surfaced by autowhisper_cmo'.

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 tells when to use the tool ('when CMO asks you to confirm') and specifies the inputs needed (message_id and decision). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the sibling tool mention.

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