hai_accept_next_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the core behavior: promoting content to the canonical NEXT_STEP.md and requiring owner acknowledgment. However, it omits whether this overwrites existing canonical content or what happens if the optional content is not provided, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence packs the action, target, input flexibility, and required approvals with no wasted words. Important constraints are front-loaded after the action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple approval/promotion action and the output schema removes the need to document return values. But with no annotations and no mention of project_path or the effect on existing NEXT_STEP.md content, the definition leaves notable gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying that owner_ack must be true and reason is required, and by implying content can be provided or taken from an existing proposal. Project_path, however, is never explained, and no format or guidance is given for reason.

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 uses a specific verb ('Promote') and a clear resource ('canonical NEXT_STEP.md'), and clarifies that it accepts either proposed or directly provided content. This distinguishes it from siblings like hai_propose_next_step and hai_get_next_step without needing to inspect those tools.

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 gives clear preconditions for use: owner_ack must be true and a reason must be supplied. It implies this is the approval/finalization step after content has been proposed, which provides usable context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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