accept_change

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

The description explains the internal handling (unwrapping w:ins, removing w:del) but does not mention error conditions or return behavior. Without annotations, this provides moderate transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by specific behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It lacks details on invalid input handling but is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type. The description adds meaning by specifying that change_id is the integer id attribute of the w:ins or w:del element, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool accepts a tracked change by change_id and explains what happens for insertions and deletions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like accept_all_changes or accept_changes, which could be ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accept_all_changes, reject_change). The description implies single change acceptance but does not explicitly advise against use in other scenarios.

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