accept_trade

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the preview vs. execution behavior but does not describe what the preview returns, whether the action is reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., player movement). Adequate but not rich.

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 with clear, front-loaded purpose. Efficient, though the first sentence could incorporate the pattern hint to reduce redundancy. No fluff.

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?

With 6 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core usage. It mentions the key parameter (transaction_id) and the two-step process. Could enhance by clarifying the preview output or default settings, but sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the need for transaction_id and the confirm pattern, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 it 'Accept a pending trade offer from another team', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like decline_trade, propose_trade, cancel_trade by focusing on acceptance and the confirmation pattern.

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 explicitly explains the two-step confirmation pattern (preview then execute) and that you need a transaction_id. It implies when to use (have a pending trade) but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives like cancel_trade.

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