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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone'), that it commits both sides by creating a Handshake, and that user confirmation is required before execution. That is exactly the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the situation that triggers the tool, then the consequence, the safety prerequisite, and the return value. No filler; every sentence 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 one-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema, the description covers timing, irreversibility, required confirmation, and the follow-up step ('what is needed next'). Nothing essential 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 single proposal_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or selection guidance beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a trade proposal') and the concrete effect ('creating a Handshake'), which distinguishes it from siblings like decline_proposal, counter_proposal and withdraw_proposal. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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 a clear trigger condition ('when the user decides to accept a trade proposal they received') and a prerequisite ('Confirm with the user first'). It does not explicitly name alternatives (counter_proposal, decline_proposal) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of the top tier.

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