Accept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the single-phase no-preview nature, the one-time token consumption ('a grant code buys exactly one reader token and then dies'), and the post-condition that accepted KBs become available to search/open/aggregate with kb='<name>'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and trigger, and every subsequent sentence contributes operational detail: the no-preview principle, token irreversibility, and input flexibility. No filler or redundancy.

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 fully covers when to call, what input to pass, what happens after acceptance, and the irreversible side effect. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, and there are no meaningful gaps for an agent deciding to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the invite parameter accepts 'the whole link, the fragment, or the bare code,' and clarifies the optional name parameter is just a local alias used with kb=.

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 ('ACCEPT'), resource ('an invitation to search somebody else's knowledge base'), and the concrete trigger forms ('Opyt invite link or grant code'). It also names downstream tools (search/open/aggregate) that rely on the accepted kb, distinguishing this from siblings like share or unshare.

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?

It gives an explicit, actionable trigger: 'Reach for this the moment the user pastes an Opyt invite link or a grant code, or says someone shared their knowledge base with them.' It clearly describes the context for use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude.

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