accept_refinement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context: a mandatory human-confirmation gate, a transport availability caveat, and the cross_space_discovery space requirement. It does not explain what the destructive effect actually is (what merging or removal occurs), which is the remaining gap given a destructive mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the conditional parameter case, then the environment limitation. No sentence is redundant.

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 destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite human decision, the conditional parameter, and transport limits. Only the concrete effect of acceptance (what is changed or removed, given destructiveHint) is left unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the space parameter's purpose and default null. The description's note about passing the destination space for cross_space_discovery largely restates the schema, adding only the card-type trigger condition, so the baseline of 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 plus resource with scope: 'Accept one listed refinement proposal by id.' The words 'one listed' and 'by id' distinguish it from reject_refinement and list_refinements in the sibling set, and the user-decision gate further narrows the action.

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 concrete precondition (an unambiguous item-level accept decision from the user) and a conditional usage rule for cross_space_discovery, plus an explicit environment restriction (local stdio only, not remote HTTP). It does not name the alternative tool (reject_refinement) for the negative case, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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