accept_insight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core side effects (marking accepted, promoting to memory, linking to source memories) but does not explain edge cases, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the insight after promotion. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal Args list. There is no filler or repetition. It earns its place with useful information.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so return format is not needed. However, the description lacks mention of any prerequisites or state requirements (e.g., the insight must already exist and be pending). This is a minor gap, but the core action and parameters are fully covered.

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 provides only parameter titles with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by including an Args section explaining both parameters: 'insight_id: The insight to accept' and 'project: Project for the promoted memory.' This adds semantic meaning, though the description of 'project' leaves its default behavior ('global') to the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('accept') and resource ('insight'), and explains the outcome: 'mark it accepted and promote it to a real memory linked to its source memories.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'reject_insight' and any other operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reject_insight, list_insights, or reflect. The description implies the action but does not specify conditions for acceptance, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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