Decide a waiting candidate

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value on top by explaining what gets destroyed (decline drops the candidate), that the decision is written to the log as owner_approval, and that it does not start a job. The one gap is that it doesn't restate reversibility beyond the drop semantics, but the destructive edge is well covered.

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 decision semantics, then organized into labeled lines for each parameter and the reply. Dense but every line adds information; a small amount of prose could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the reply fields (ok, id, owner_approval, promoted, parent), including that promoted may be null. Combined with the workflow precondition and follow-up, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: root is defined with its default (last ratchet this server started), id is defined with an example format (c003) and its default (the waiting one), and decline is defined as drop-instead-of-promote. All three parameters gain meaning beyond their bare schema types.

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: the owner gate that promotes or drops the accepted candidate that is waiting. It is immediately distinguishable from ratchet_run and ratchet_status, both of which it references by name.

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 about the precondition (a ratchet started with stop_before_promote or acceptance.owner_gate), what status shows it as (pending / waiting_for_owner), that the user must be asked first, and the follow-up action (call ratchet_run again with the same root). No inference required.

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