accept_change

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

Describes behavior for insertions and deletions, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or output format. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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-loaded with main action, then details. Efficiently structured with bullet points for insertions and deletions. Minor redundancy in Args section vs description.

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?

Covers core purpose and parameter sufficiently. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed in description. Could add more about when to use this tool among siblings.

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?

Adds meaningful context to change_id parameter by specifying it's the id attribute of w:ins or w:del elements, which goes beyond the schema's integer type definition. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states 'Accept a single tracked change by its change_id' with specific behaviors for insertions and deletions, effectively differentiating from siblings like accept_all_changes and reject_change.

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?

Implied usage for accepting a single change, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over accept_changes or reject_change, nor any when-not scenarios.

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