accept_slice

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the state transition and the required approval precondition. However, it does not mention failure behavior, idempotency, or whether acceptance is reversible, stopping at adequate rather than thorough.

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 that front-loads the key state transition and immediately states the necessary decision condition. Every word earns its place with no clutter or repetition.

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 state-transition tool with an output schema, the description covers the core workflow context and prerequisites. It could add explicit guidance about accepted_by semantics or when not to use this tool, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for slice_id and approval_id by tying them to a VERIFIED slice and an approved ACCEPT_SLICE decision. It does not explain accepted_by, leaving one parameter semantically underexplained.

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 ('Move'), resource ('slice'), and lifecycle transition (VERIFIED to ACCEPTED). The requirement for an approved ACCEPT_SLICE decision also distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_slice.

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: the slice must already be VERIFIED and the ACCEPT_SLICE decision must be approved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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