Act on an existing bid

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

The description reveals the key non-obvious consequence—`choose` is effectively irreversible and starts a workspace—and instructs confirmation. It also states which roles may perform which actions. This adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting annotations.

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 compact sentences deliver all action definitions and a safety warning with no filler. Markdown formatting makes the action names scannable and front-loads the most important behavior.

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 mutating, destructive action tool with three straightforward required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what each action does, who can invoke it, and the main irreversible side effect. It omits minor details such as allowed state transitions or response format, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for the `action` enum and explains each value fully (`revoke`, `restore`, `reject`, `choose` with role semantics). `bid_id` and `project_id` remain described only by their names, but their meaning is sufficiently evident from the tool name and action descriptions.

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 enumerates four concrete actions (`revoke`, `restore`, `reject`, `choose`) with role-specific meanings, making it clear this tool acts on an existing bid. It differentiates from siblings like add_bid or list_project_bids by specifying the exact mutations available.

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 for when each action is appropriate: freelancers revoke/restore their own bids, employers reject or choose, and choose should only be executed after user confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the role and action guidance is sufficient for normal selection.

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