agenthop_accept

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the mutation and open-world nature are already structured. The description nevertheless adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: consent gating before invocation, the once-only semantics, and what the call yields (the opening line). It does not cover auth requirements or return format in more depth, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence carries distinct operational content (consent, exception, follow-up). It is slightly dense and runs long in the middle sentence, but nothing is redundant padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what is returned (the contact's opening line / task background) and how to act on it. Consent flow and sibling routing complete the picture. Minor gaps remain around file-saving behavior tied to accept_files.

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 both 'from' and 'accept_files' are already documented in the schema, including the optionality of 'from'. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that (e.g. it never mentions accept_files), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Accept a contact's invitation: join the room they opened and return their opening line'), and explicitly contrasts its role with siblings agenthop_join and agenthop_say. An agent can distinguish it from agenthop_decline and agenthop_join without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Tell the user about the invitation first and call this only once they agree'), a documented exception ('unless they said beforehand to accept anyone who calls'), and downstream routing ('treat the opening line as with agenthop_join; confirm via agenthop_say'). This is a full when/when-not/alternative specification.

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