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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, it discloses the side effects of a mutual accept (overlap opens a private conversation and emails each person a link) and the permanent scope of a block versus the one-request scope of a decline. The instruction 'Never promise an address' adds a real-world constraint agents must know.

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 compact, front-loading the core action and enumerating the three values before expanding on side effects and constraints. Every clause—precondition, mutual-accept side effects, address warning, decline scope, block permanence—earns its 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers when to call, what the response values mean, side effects, and permanent/consequential behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 descriptions for match_id and response already cover their meaning, with the response enum documenting accept, decline, and block in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Record the one answer the user gave about a match: accept, decline or block.' It enumerates the three allowed responses, making the tool's function unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools that create, confirm, withdraw, or inspect match requests.

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 precondition: 'Call it only after the user has said which of the three they want.' It also provides when-not guidance by distinguishing decline ('covers this one request, and a later request from that person can still match') from block ('permanent ... send block only when the user asks for exactly that').

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