cantrip_review_accept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that accepting marks an entity as 'verified ground truth,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the entity post-acceptance. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a concise second sentence about the 'project' parameter. Both sentences earn their place by adding value without waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), does not explain return values or errors, and while it covers parameter context, it does not compensate for the absence of structured safety or output information.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'project') fully. The description adds minimal value by explaining that 'project' overrides '.cantrip.json' and is useful in specific contexts, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('accept an inferred entity') and the outcome ('marking it as verified ground truth'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cantrip_review_dismiss, cantrip_review_reject, and cantrip_review_resolve. The verb 'accept' paired with the resource 'inferred entity' provides precise purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the 'project' parameter ('useful in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cantrip_review_dismiss or cantrip_review_reject. It implies usage in review workflows but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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