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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real context beyond that: it commits the person, both sides accepting confirms the plan, passing reveals nothing about why, and leave:true ends the plan for both. It adds no output/return or retry behavior, but the declared side effects are meaningful.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the audience, the decision, and the commitment warning leading. The repeated inline Args block is somewhat redundant given the 100%-covered schema, but overall the sentences earn their place.

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 small 4-param mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key outcomes (confirmation, next proposal, plan termination) and the 'no auth required' note. It is nearly complete, only missing routing guidance against the sibling tool.

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 the schema already documents accept, leave, token, and plan_id, so the description's repeated 'Args: {...}' list adds little. The prose does add semantic meaning for accept (true accepts / false passes) and leave (ends it for both), but the schema covers this too.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('accept or pass on the current proposal, or leave the plan') and scopes the audience clearly ('For the GUEST of a plan or their assistant'). However, it never differentiates itself from the close sibling ic_plans_guest_answer, leaving an agent unable to tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

Gives clear context and consequence-based guidance: accept vs pass moves to the next proposal, leave ends the plan, and 'ASK YOUR PERSON FIRST, it commits them' frames the decision. It does not name when to choose a sibling tool (e.g., ic_plans_guest_answer) over this one.

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