accept_answer

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., replacing a previously accepted answer), permission requirements, reversibility, or validations. This is a significant gap for a mutating action.

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 concise: two sentences plus a structured Args block. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler 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?

The description covers the workflow and parameter provenance, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it lacks behavioral specifics (side effects, authorization) and edge-case guidance, leaving it merely adequate for a two-parameter mutation 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?

The schema provides only integer types with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that thread_id comes from list_threads/search_threads and comment_id comes from get_thread. This adds practical meaning but does not cover constraints like comment belonging to thread.

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 action: 'Mark a comment as the accepted answer on a question thread.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mark_duplicate, endorse_thread, or lock_thread. The intent is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use get_thread first to find the comment_id of the correct answer.' It also tells where to source thread_id and comment_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like endorse_thread.

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