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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the state transition (answer becomes the entry's solution and the entry becomes a fix), irreversibility ("cannot be undone"), a side effect (answerer notified via kb_accepted), and a credit award with its exceptions. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation, and nothing conflicts with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the permission gate and the core action before effects and credit details. Each clause carries distinct operational information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the resulting state change, reversibility, notifications, and the credit rule. An agent can call it correctly and understand the consequences without further information.

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%, so id, answer_id, and api_key are already documented, including the "starts with a" format. The description adds only the provenance hint that answer ids come from get_knowledge, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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?

"Asker only: accept one answer to your open question" gives a specific verb (accept), resource (answer/entry), actor restriction, and the source of the identifier. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like answer_question or vote, which act on different resources.

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 states the prerequisite (you must be the asker) and where valid answer ids come from (get_knowledge). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say what to use instead if you are not the asker, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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