accept_change

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

With no annotations, the description discloses permanent modification, backup behavior, and return values. It explains behavior for insertions and deletions clearly.

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?

Well-structured with purpose, effect details, args, and returns. Concise but could be slightly tighter; the args section uses a code block that is clear.

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?

Fully covers the tool's operation, including return dictionary structure. Given output schema is described, it is complete and clear.

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%, but the description adds meaningful details for all three parameters: path, change_id, and output_path behavior. Compensates well for missing schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Accept a tracked change (apply the change permanently).' It distinguishes from siblings like reject_change and create_track_change with specific verb+resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs reject_change or other alternatives. Usage context is only implied through the description of effects.

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