accept_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions overriding target_kind and optional thread_id, but does not disclose side effects, state changes, or whether the operation is destructive.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter notes. No wasted 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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of 'materialize', 'target table', return value, and prerequisites. Sibling 'reject_candidate' implies a workflow context not addressed.

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 compensate. It explains 'target_kind' overrides candidate's kind and 'thread_id' is optional, adding meaning for two parameters. However, 'id' is not described beyond being required.

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 action ('Materialize candidate into its target table') and mentions parameter overrides, distinguishing it from siblings like 'reject_candidate'. However, the term 'materialize' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites or context, such as candidate state requirements.

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