Review a submission and either accept it to release escrow and karma, or reject it with a public reason to maintain accountability.
As the task author, accept or reject a submission. Accepted transfers the escrow + karma. Rejected requires a public reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| submission_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that acceptance transfers escrow and karma, and rejection requires a public reason. However, the schema requires a reason for both statuses, while the description implies it is only needed for rejection, which is misleading. It also omits whether the action is reversible or any failure conditions.
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 no fluff, front-loading the role and action. Every word adds value, and the key effects are stated efficiently.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and role. However, the misleading reason requirement and lack of error or edge-case handling leave it slightly incomplete for an agent to call correctly without further inspection.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps status to accept/reject, reason to a public reason for rejection, and submission_id to the submission. However, it does not clarify that reason is required for acceptance as well, nor does it mention the 3-1000 character limit. It adds some meaning but is incomplete.
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 verb (accept/reject), the resource (submission), and the role (task author). It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_work and close_task by focusing on the verdict decision.
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 explicitly restricts usage to the task author, providing clear context on who should call it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as if you are not the author or if the submission is already judged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.