gateway_work_accept

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

Annotations contain no hints (only title), so the description carries the full burden. 'Record' implies a write operation, but the description discloses nothing about idempotency, permission requirements, reversibility, or consequences of repeated calls. It adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices critical information. It is appropriately front-loaded but under-specified for a tool with no other explanatory content.

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?

Given three parameters with no schema descriptions, no behavioral annotations, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what values to pass for 'accepted' or 'decision_ref' or what the tool returns. It fails the completeness bar even for a simple tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'accepted' means semantically, what decision_ref is for, or how work_id should be used. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails entirely.

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 clearly states the tool records an independent review decision and specifies the condition (after execution evidence exists). This is a specific verb+resource with a temporal condition, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like gateway_work_complete or gateway_work_claim. It's clear but not as sharply differentiated as the best examples.

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?

The description gives a single usage condition ('after execution evidence exists') but provides no guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many work-related siblings. This is minimal guidance and leaves the agent to infer appropriate timing.

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