fow_accept_milestone

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavior: the action appends acceptance authority under policy guards and explicitly cannot be used to substitute for agent completion. It omits any retry/idempotency warning, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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, front-loaded lines covering purpose, invocation style, prerequisites, and effects, with a pointer to exact help last. Every line contributes; the help-pointer line is somewhat formulaic but useful for route discovery.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and structured fields supply safety and parameter detail. The description still covers what an agent needs: gates that must close first, the evidence requirement, and the fact that this records authority rather than agent-claimed completion.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including actor, request_id retry semantics, and the meaning of acceptance_evidence. The description adds only high-level prerequisite context (eligible milestone, actual evidence) rather than parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Record governed acceptance of an eligible milestone') with scope conditions (evidence, verification and campaign gates closed). It implicitly distinguishes itself from verification and completion tools via 'never substitutes agent completion for acceptance', but no sibling is named outright.

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?

An explicit Prerequisites line tells the agent when this applies: an existing eligible milestone plus actual governed acceptance evidence after verification/campaign closure. It also clarifies invocation style ('single operation; call directly without an operation argument'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the when-not case, though the 'not a completion claim' line implies one.

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