pws_respond_to_promise

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the atomic side effects: 'Atomically updates the promise, decision email, and native PWS relationship consequence, then verifies all three.' This provides critical behavioral insight not available in the annotations (which only mark destructiveHint=true). The preview default is also a behavioral nuance.

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 preview default. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields. The structure clearly separates the action from the atomic side-effect explanation.

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 atomic write behavior and preview default, but it does not describe the output/return value, which is relevant given there is no output schema. It also lacks details about the confirmed parameter and when to use preview vs. a confirmed action. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps for a destructive tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does explain 'accept/decline' for the decision parameter and 'Defaults to preview' for the preview parameter, but it does not clarify the confirmed parameter (likely a confirmation flag) or the promiseId semantics beyond what the schema implies. Missing confirmed is a notable gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: to preview or accept/decline a pending player-company worker promise request. It uses specific action verbs ('accept/decline') and names the resource ('promise request'), distinguishing it from read-only siblings like pws_get_promises. The scope is unambiguous.

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 states 'Defaults to preview' which implies a workflow of previewing before confirming, and it names the context ('pending player-company worker promise request'). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to select it.

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