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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (turns suggestion into action item), the state change (marks accepted), preservation of wording/link, and the required scope. This is good coverage, though it doesn't mention error behaviors such as failure if the suggestion isn't pending.

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 sentences, no redundant wording. The first sentence explains the core action with important detail, and the second adds a necessary permission note. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It explains the source, mutation, side effect, and permission. The absence of an output schema means the return format is not described, but the lack of explicit return value is a minor gap.

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 100%, and each parameter already has detailed meaning (e.g., suggested_action_id from insights.list, only pending). The description adds context about the overall process but doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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's function: converting a pending suggested action into a real action item. It specifies the source (retro.board.insights.list), the outcome (marks as accepted), and how content is preserved (wording and cluster link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reject and manual creation.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: for pending suggestions from insights.list that should become actionable. It mentions the prerequisite of mcp:write scope and that only pending suggestions are eligible (in schema). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like retro.board.suggested_actions.reject or retro.actions.create, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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