feedback_accept

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'reads the chain, checks nothing, changes nothing' is largely redundant reinforcement. The real value added is the acceptance contract: verified disposition plus byte-for-byte identity, with three named refusal cases (post-edit, refused repair, unverified chain) — context annotations cannot express.

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?

Every clause carries information, but the structure is poor: the opening is a dangling fragment and the primary outcome (accepted boolean plus reason) is buried mid-sentence inside a semicolon chain. Front-loading 'Returns whether a final report is acceptable' would have made it far easier to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision criteria, the failure reasons, and the side-effect profile, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It leaves 'disposition is verified' undefined, depending on the agent's knowledge of the sibling feedback tools.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'final_text' must be byte-for-byte the chain's last accepted text, which tells the agent not to normalize or edit the string before passing it. The 'chain' parameter's provenance is only restated from the schema.

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 makes clear this is a validation predicate over a feedback chain's final report, with the accepted/reason outcome implied by the enumerated refusal cases. It is specific about the resource (a chain's final text) but is written as a sentence fragment ('Before accepting...: whether it is...') rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never names the sibling it differs from (e.g. verify_report).

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?

'Before accepting a final report from a feedback chain' establishes the exact moment this check belongs in a workflow, and the refusal cases imply it should be run prior to handing in a report. It does not mention alternatives such as verify_report or feedback_resolve, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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