ed_accept_answer

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

Annotations already state this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the effect of marking as resolved and the ownership prerequisite, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, any permission requirements beyond ownership, or what happens if the answer is already accepted. The added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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?

Single sentence, direct, front-loaded with the action, no superfluous words. It conveys what, where, and the outcome efficiently.

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?

For a simple state-changing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the ownership condition, and the effect. It lacks details like reversibility or side effects, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions (thread_id must be your own thread, comment_id is the answer comment to accept). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'accept an answer on your own question thread, mark as resolved' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ed_post_comment or ed_reply_to_comment. The ownership constraint ('your own') adds precision.

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 implies the usage context: when you have a question thread and want to accept an answer. It also includes an important condition ('on your own thread'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an AI to understand when to invoke it.

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