accept_classification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool records acceptance under the caller's name, that it writes something, and that it shares refusal conditions with propose_reclassification. It also discloses a meaningful constraint: derived codes cannot be overwritten by a proposed code. It does not cover output shape or permission requirements, but the core side effects and failure conditions are transparent.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and is reasonably compact. The extra sentences about same checker, refusals, and derived-code priority add real decision value rather than filler. The metaphorical phrasing 'a guess does not outrank arithmetic' is slightly less direct than the rest, but it does not undermine clarity.

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?

The description explains the tool's role, side effects, and refusal behavior, which covers the core decision of when to use it. However, missing parameter-level guidance for required fields like rationale and run_id leaves an agent to guess at argument semantics. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values, but the overall definition is only minimally complete for a four-parameter write operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the four required parameters. It references 'code' and 'exception' contextually, but it does not explain run_id, exception_id, code, or rationale meaning, format, or relationships. The rationale parameter is entirely undiscussed, which is a significant gap for a required field.

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 resource: 'Accept a proposed code for an exception, under your name.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from propose_reclassification by naming that sibling and explaining the difference in side effects, so an agent can tell the two apart clearly.

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 clearly situates this tool as the counterpart to propose_reclassification: that tool only asks and writes nothing, while this tool records acceptance. It also says the same checker and same refusals apply, giving an agent useful conditions for when acceptance may fail. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as 'call propose_reclassification first,' but the intended workflow is strongly implied.

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