accept_ai_edits

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: non-targeted revisions remain byte-untouched, multiple document parts are swept, and ambiguous overlaps cause a hard-error with a structured error code and overlaps list unless normalize_first is set. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It contains necessary detail without redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise in the error handling part.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, destructive effect, error cases) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: operation, parameter usage, scope, error behavior, and options. It is complete and self-contained.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that revision_ids target specific w:id values, author is a convenience alternative, and normalize_first is best-effort with no byte-identical guarantee. This context goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 selectively accepts tracked changes by revision id or author, and specifies the scope (document.xml and side-story parts). It also distinguishes behavior for ambiguous overlaps, making the purpose very specific and distinct from sibling tools like accept_changes.

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 explains when to use revision_ids vs author, and the normalize_first option for ambiguous overlaps. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tool 'accept_changes' to indicate when one should be preferred over the other.

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