Accept findings

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

The description discloses the mutation and destructive nature beyond annotations: it is 'one undoable step', it stops counting, and prune drops orphaned acceptances. It also describes the response format (accepted and removed counts) and advises re-reading the review. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and adds valuable context.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the main action, explains prune, notes undoability, and specifies the response. Every sentence contributes, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary. It is not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: effect on findings, prune behavior, undoability, and how to verify (read the review again). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters (accept format and prune behavior). The description largely repeats this information without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: to mark findings from specific review types (check_layout, ergonomics, electrical, plumbing) as looked at. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact review types and the effect (stopping counting).

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 explains the behavior in detail (stops counting, empty reason takes back, prune for orphaned findings) and notes the undoable step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete or undo, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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