Accept a changed file as still correct

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state change (clearing a stale warning), the ordering prerequisite (hash must be reported first, and by another tool), and the negative branch. It stops short of saying what happens if the hash is stale or not reported, or whether the clearing is idempotent/reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the alternative branch. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, precondition, and alternative path adequately. Minor gaps (failure modes when the hash is unreported or stale, and what is returned after acceptance) remain, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 50% (only 'model' is described). The description compensates by clarifying the target: ref_id refers to a linked file whose hash must be reported through report_file_hashes rather than passed here, which prevents an agent from guessing at a hash parameter. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it never states ref_id's format.

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 effect: clearing the stale warning on a linked file. It also scopes the action with the precondition ('once you have read the change') so an agent knows exactly what state transition this performs, distinct from siblings like get_file_context or update_context.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('note still holds') and when-not ('if the note no longer holds, fix the note instead'), routing the agent to the alternative path. It also names the required prior step (report its current hash first, via report_file_hashes), so the sequencing is unambiguous.

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