accept_tracked_changes

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: all-or-nothing semantics ("Nothing is sent if any id is unknown"), an explicit confirmation step in the MCP client before writing, premium-plan gating, and a prompt-injection warning about collaborator-authored content. Annotations cover destructive/idempotent hints, but the atomicity and confirmation behavior would be invisible otherwise.

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-loads the action and its effect in the first clause, then layers preconditions. Slightly dense — the trust-boundary sentence is generic MCP boilerplate — but every sentence carries operational or safety information rather than filler.

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 the mutation's semantics, atomicity failure mode, availability constraint (premium), the confirmation gate, and the untrusted-content caveat. With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema itself documents both parameters, including the note that change ids come from list_comments with include_changes. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the outcome semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ("accept tracked changes") and immediately defines the resulting state: suggested text stays, suggestion markers removed. That semantic definition makes the contrast with the sibling reject_tracked_changes unambiguous without needing to name it.

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 real preconditions an agent needs: ids must all be known, and the feature only exists for projects whose owner has a premium plan. It stops short of explicitly routing to reject_tracked_changes or naming list_comments as the id source in prose, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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