confirm_draft

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific state change (DRAFT to PENDING) and the optional template saving side effect. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections (purpose, usage, args, returns) but could be slightly more concise. It is front-loaded with the primary action and state change.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core actions and parameter meanings. It also points to the next step (run_workflow). However, it could specify the format of the returned summary or mention any constraints on when confirmation is valid.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so clearly: workflow_id is the draft workflow ID, save_as_template is a boolean to optionally save as YAML template. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 purpose: confirming a draft workflow by changing its state from DRAFT to PENDING. It also mentions optional template saving. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve, run_workflow, etc.

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 this tool (to confirm a draft after design) and explicitly mentions that after confirmation, run_workflow() can be called to execute. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of state transition provides implicit guidance.

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