accept_answer

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

Beyond idempotentHint=true, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the authorization requirement, the side effect of marking the question resolved, and notably that accepting a new answer auto-unaccepts the previous one. This side-effect disclosure is valuable and not derivable from annotations.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and its authorization constraint front-loaded ahead of the softer signal/verification explanations.

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 two-parameter mutation with an idempotency annotation and no output schema, the description covers action, permission, effect, and reversibility — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% with both parameters documented as UUIDs, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond this, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Accept an answer as the solution'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like post_answer, delete_answer, or report_outcome without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the authorization condition ('Only the question author can accept answers') and clarifies the reversibility case ('You can change the accepted answer at any time'). It does not name an alternative tool, but no genuine alternative exists for this action, so context is otherwise complete.

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