invariance_dna_accept_edge_candidate

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

Annotations already provide the core behavioral facts (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that the candidate becomes 'eligible for promotion,' which is a meaningful state change. However, it does not clarify reversibility, whether accepted candidates can be later rejected, or what happens to related edge data.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then states the outcome immediately. Every word contributes meaning.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation context, the description covers the core action and result. It lacks explicit workflow context about when accepting differs from promoting, but the one-parameter complexity and the clear outcome make it mostly complete for basic usage.

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 'id' parameter is already fully documented as an edge candidate ID. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so schema carries the entire parameter meaning, which is adequate for a one-parameter tool.

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 and resource: 'Accept a proposed DNA edge candidate' and clearly states the outcome: 'making it eligible for promotion into a durable semantic link.' This distinguishes it from the sibling promote tool by describing a pre-promotion state rather than the final promotion itself.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention when to use accept versus reject_edge_candidate or promote_edge_candidate, nor does it explain the working relationship to those siblings. An agent cannot tell whether acceptance is a required predecessor to promotion or an alternative step.

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