accept_friendship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key non-obvious trait: the request remains acceptable server-side even after dismissal/decline. It also points to diplomacy()/IsDoF as a way to verify the effect, though it does not state permission requirements or whether acceptance can be undone.

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?

Front-loads the action and the identifying state, then adds the edge-case behavior and a verification hint. Dense and mostly earned, though the internal state name and API reference add some jargon weight.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, the non-obvious server-side persistence, and how to confirm the result. The only real gap is the semantics of player_id.

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 0% and the single player_id parameter is undocumented. The description implies the target is the leader who sent the proposal, but never says how to obtain or format player_id, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (Accept) and resource (a pending Declaration of Friendship proposal), and pins down the exact server-side state (turn_digest's leader_message with state DISCUSS_WORK_WITH_US). An agent can distinguish it from propose_friendship, respond_discussion, and accept_deal without opening a 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 a clear condition for use (a pending DoF proposal exists) and explicitly notes it still works after the dialog was dismissed/declined, which is a non-obvious usage case. It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should prefer when the proposal is not a friendship offer.

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