workstream_accept_candidate

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the created handoff is 'immutable', the advancement is 'atomic', and idempotency is reiterated for the same committed transition. It also warns about authorization boundaries. These traits are not present in structured annotations, so the description adds real value here.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the governance constraint, then the primary action, then prerequisites and a guardrail. Each sentence provides distinct information. It is slightly dense but not wasteful. A small trim would improve it, but it remains appropriately structured and informative.

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?

This is a complex, 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The description omits essential operational context such as what each parameter means, how the 'configured target repository' is identified, what success/failure responses look like, and how the tool uses the provided SHA-256 values. An agent would struggle to construct a correct invocation without additional documentation. The description is not complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 0% and the description does not explain the individual parameters. It references 'candidate', 'prior current SHA-256/revision/handoff', and 'next task' at a conceptual level, but does not map them to the 7 required parameters (e.g., review_task_id, review_event_seq, workstream_id, candidate_path). The nested object next_task_ref also lacks a clear relationship to the described workflow. With no schema-level descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.

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 specifies an exact action ('Accept a reviewed agent-workstream-context-v1 CANDIDATE'), the resource type, and the subsequent effects ('create its immutable accepted handoff, and atomically advance the configured target repository'). It also adds a governance boundary ('Trusted ChatGPT/bridge governance only') that distinguishes it from general-purpose tools. This clearly identifies the tool's unique role among the siblings.

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 gives explicit prerequisites ('Requires a persisted chatgpt.review ACCEPTED JSON binding candidate, prior current SHA-256/revision/handoff, and next task') and a clear when-not ('Task completion/auto-close never authorizes this action'). It also specifies the trusted governance context, which indicates who may use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer a sibling, so it's not a full 5.

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