Accept Behavioural Link Proposals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the operation is mutating, creates no model version, side effects (judgements queued, charged to the caller), and precise error semantics with codes and required follow-up actions. This is far beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loads the core action and mutating/side-effect note, then layers workflow and error handling. The prose is dense but each sentence carries operational value; only the multi-paragraph structure adds mild length.

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 mutating, error-prone operation, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, all relevant error codes, escalation handling, and a return-value hint ('returns the links ... with declared'). Even though an output schema exists, the behavioral completeness is excellent.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to proposals_hash ('the set reviewed' obtained from get_behavioural_links), which is the key semantic link. model_id and server_version get no additional text, leaving a small gap for server_version.

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?

States a specific verb (declare/accept) and resource (link proposals) and signals batch scope with 'every ... in one act,' which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-item declare_behavioural_link sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 prescribes the prerequisite workflow (read with get_behavioural_links and pass its proposals_hash), names when it fails (409 review_stale, 422 no_proposals, 403 escalation), and gives concrete routing on failure ('Do not retry: report the escalation_id and poll list_proposals'). Alternatives and conditions are both covered.

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