mark_itp_accepted

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that acceptance is a buy-off recorded under the agent's name and requires explicit permission. Could mention idempotency or reversibility, but overall clear.

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, efficient and front-loaded with verb and key conditions. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. However, the parameter is not fully described, and the tool's effects (e.g., status change) are implied but not explicit. Adequate but has gaps.

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 description must explain the parameter. It only implies that 'item_id' identifies the ITP line item, but no details on format, source, or relationship to other tools. Insufficient for a 1-param tool.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'Mark', resource 'ITP line item accepted', and adds context: must already be complete, recorded under agent's name, requires explicit go-ahead. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'mark_itp_complete' and 'mark_map_item_accepted'.

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?

Explicitly states precondition ('must already be complete') and permission requirement ('only do this with the user's explicit go-ahead'). Does not list when not to use or alternatives, but context is sufficient for correct usage.

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