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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effect — the patch is applied 'as a normal edit' and the entity version is bumped — but says nothing about permissions, whether the action is reversible, what happens to a rejected/stale proposal, or conflict behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the side effects immediately after. Nothing is padded.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with an undocumented second parameter and no output schema, this leaves too much unresolved: room's meaning, required permissions, and what a version bump implies for concurrent editors.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers one of the two parameters ('by id' maps to proposal). The 'room' parameter, whose pattern implies a room scope or the commons, is never mentioned.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Accept a proposal by id') and states the effect, so it is clearly distinct from proposal-related siblings like world_reject and world_propose. It stops short of differentiating itself explicitly by naming the alternative.

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?

Use is implied: this is the tool you call to approve a proposal. There is no statement of preconditions (must the proposal exist, must you own it, does the room need to be unlocked) and no explicit contrast with reject or direct world_edit.

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