scf_accept_cdm_proposal

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('write — editor role') and a key non-obvious behavior: 'the proposal and every citation under it flip to accepted together.' This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it stops short of mentioning idempotency, reversibility, or failure conditions.

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 action and role, and includes the essential behavioral caveat in the second sentence. There is no wordiness or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple two-parameter write action with no output schema, the description covers the role requirement and the atomic effect on citations. It does not mention prerequisites like the proposal's current state or how to handle errors, but these are minor gaps that the rich parameter sourcing hints already mitigate.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions that tell the agent where to obtain each UUID (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Accept a control-level CDM proposal.' It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like scf_dismiss_cdm_proposal by explicitly saying 'accept' and 'write — editor role,' and clarifies the scope as 'control-level' and 'whole card.'

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 provides clear context by stating it is a write operation requiring an editor role, and explains that one decision covers the entire card. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'accept' vs 'dismiss' sibling contrast makes the primary use case clear.

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