adaptive_accept_recommendation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by noting that acceptance 'feeds positive signal into the feedback loop for model improvement,' but it does not disclose other potential side effects like reversibility, permissions, or response behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains the purpose and a key behavioral consequence (feedback loop). It is adequate for the tool's complexity, though it could mention prerequisites or return values. Overall, sufficiently complete but not exhaustive.

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 the schema already fully documents 'recommendation_id.' The description adds identifying context ('pending layout recommendation') but does not go beyond the schema's parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Accepts') and resource ('pending layout recommendation by ID'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like adaptive_reject_recommendation by emphasizing the accept action and the feedback loop purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (for accepting a pending layout recommendation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The existence of adaptive_reject_recommendation as a sibling is not referenced, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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