accept_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the actor restriction and what qualifies as the correct target, but it does not describe consequences such as whether acceptance can be undone or how it changes the question/answer state.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the intended meaning and usage.

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 simple single-required-parameter action, the description plus schema provides essentially everything needed to call the tool correctly. The main gap is lack of side-effect context, but that is already accounted for under behavioral transparency.

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 50%: token is documented but answer_id only has type/constraints. The phrase 'the answer that solved your question' gives semantic meaning to answer_id, but the description does not explicitly discuss either parameter or the optional token.

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 states the exact action ('accept'), the resource ('the answer'), and the role restriction ('as the asker'), plus the selection criterion ('that solved your question'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like answer_question or mark_helpful.

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?

It gives clear context: the tool is for the asker and should be used only for the answer that actually solved the question. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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