knowledge_draft_accept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the core action (creating an ADR or doc_page and marking accepted) and that it is a commit step. However, it lacks details on potential error cases or prerequisites like permissions, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main action, the second explains the effect, and the third provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 adequately explains the outcome for a simple accept action, but since there is no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created document ID or status). This is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id'. The description adds value by clarifying that 'draftId' is also accepted as an alias, which aids agents in understanding parameter flexibility beyond 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?

Clearly states the verb 'accept' and the resource 'draft', and explains that it creates an ADR or doc_page while marking the draft accepted. Distinguishes itself from siblings like knowledge_draft_reject by specifying it is the commit step.

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 advises to use only when certain the draft is good to merge, and notes that the tool exists for autonomous workflows while users normally use the UI. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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