run_acceptance_iteration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: failures are recorded as a phase_error rather than a crash, and a terminal loop is refused unless force=true. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but the mutation/iteration semantics are well disclosed.

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 the core action and the phase sequence, then the outcome/decision set, then the edge-case rules. It is dense but each clause carries actionable information; the parenthetical step notation is compact. Slightly clause-heavy, but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value (a decision among converged/should_continue/exhausted/stalled plus checks to fix), covering what would otherwise be missing. With annotations and full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the loop lifecycle around start_acceptance_loop/acceptance_loop_status could be tied together more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (force, session) are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal meaning to force by tying it to the terminal-loop refusal, but offers nothing new for session. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource ('Run one bounded loop iteration') and enumerates the exact pipeline phases (build → flash+run-to → evaluate AcceptanceSpec). It distinguishes itself cleanly from siblings like run_acceptance and start_acceptance_loop by framing this as a single iteration within an existing loop.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('start_acceptance_loop first') and the terminal-loop/force condition, which tells the agent when it is and isn't allowed to call. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicitly stating when not to use it versus run_acceptance, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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