sparda_confirm

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the action as confirmation of a write/delete operation gated by policies, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. Minimal but adequate.

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?

A single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key requirement.

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 description is sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but lacks details about the gating mechanism, what happens after confirmation, and potential errors. Could be more complete.

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% for the single 'token' parameter, and the description adds that it is a confirmation token from a gated response. This does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 confirms a pending write or delete operation using a confirmation token. The verb 'confirms' and resource 'pending write or delete operation' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that are read-only or informational.

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 implies usage after receiving a token from a gated invoke response, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. The context of human-in-the-loop policies provides clear guidance on the workflow step.

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