mesh_answer_ring

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: it discloses that accepting joins the room first, the caller is notified, declining shows an optional reason, the answer travels as a proven call, and the edge case where caller_notified=0 if the caller is absent. It also clarifies that deferring is not an answer. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient: four sentences cover purpose, both answer modes, the transport mechanism, and an edge case. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Slightly long but appropriately packed for a tool with two distinct behaviors.

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?

Covers prerequisites (where ring_id comes from), the two answer flows, and the edge case of a missing caller (caller_notified=0). No output schema is present, but the description mentions a key output field. It does not describe the full return payload, but that is minor given the explanation of side effects. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that ring_id comes from rings.pending in mesh_read_inbox, gives concrete meaning to answer values (1 accept / 2 decline) with behavioral consequences, and notes that reason is shown to the caller. This goes beyond simple field labels.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a ring that was deferred to you'. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like mesh_ring or mesh_wait_ring by framing it as the response to a pending ring listed in mesh_read_inbox. The accept/decline behavior is explicit.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use it (for deferred rings from rings.pending) and explains the two answer modes and their side effects. It also warns against deferring again, effectively saying 'use this for answering, not for deferring'. Does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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