Accept or decline offer

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds the crucial behavior that the first call writes nothing and only returns a preview plus a confirm_token. This non-obvious, two-phase write semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express, and it does not contradict them.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the state transitions come first and the mandatory two-step protocol is front-loaded as 'TWO-STEP'. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 output schema, the description usefully explains what the first call returns (a preview and a confirm_token). It leaves minor gaps—what happens if the deal is not in `offered` state, and no mention of the optional `note` field—but covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the critical parameter: it explains that confirm_token is omitted on the first call and must be supplied with identical arguments on the second. The `note` parameter and the deal_id format remain undocumented in both places, which keeps this below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('records the creator's decision') on a specific resource ('an `offered` deal') and spells out both outcome transitions (accept -> `accepted`, decline -> `declined`). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like cancel_deal or create_offer because the precondition state (`offered`) and the resulting states are named.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the two-step flow: call without confirm_token for a preview, show it to the user, and only re-call after their approval. It does not, however, name alternative tools (e.g. cancel_deal) or state when this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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