vibe_confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important trait: this tool is a gate whose record is required before code may be written. Beyond that it is silent on whether an open checkpoint must exist, what happens if the call is repeated or the option mismatches the open checkpoint's stage, and what the call returns.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded, leading with the tool's purpose before enumerating options, with no filler sentences. The telegraphic parentheticals make it slightly hard to parse on first read, but every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema workflow gate with no annotations, the description covers the option semantics and the pre-write gating rule, which is what an agent most needs. The remaining gaps (projectPath, open-checkpoint prerequisite, failure behavior) are real but minor relative to its size.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates well for the most important parameter by explaining the semantics of each enum value (confirm/discuss/approach) and clarifying that userText is required with option=approach, which the schema also states. projectPath is left entirely unexplained in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'resolve the open checkpoint with the USER's decision,' which is concrete enough to distinguish it from the creation-oriented sibling vibe_checkpoint. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for each enum value: confirm when the user chose 'Confirm and continue' or 'Implement this step', discuss when they asked questions, approach when recording their own build-stage reasoning. It also states a hard precondition ('Without this tool's record, code must not be written'), though it never states when NOT to call it or what to do if no checkpoint is open.

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