accept_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states an access restriction ('integrator-only') and an action ('accept decision'), but it does not describe side effects, state changes, permissions needed beyond role, or what happens after the acceptance.

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?

The description is extremely short and waste-free, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A few words do not provide enough information for a tool with five required parameters and a meaningful workflow.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is fundamentally incomplete. It lacks context about the event-review lifecycle, when 'accept' is appropriate versus reject or review, what constraints apply, and how the required parameters should be determined. The tool is left almost entirely unexplained.

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 contributes nothing about event_id, actor_id, actor_role, base_revision, or decision_note. The agent receives no help understanding what these parameters mean or how they relate to the acceptance action.

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 phrase 'accept decision' gives a general sense of the operation and 'integrator-only' adds a role restriction, but it never names the resource explicitly as an event. It is too terse to be fully clear and relies heavily on the tool name to carry meaning.

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 only usage signal is 'integrator-only,' which hints at who may invoke it but not when it should be used. It does not contrast with sibling tools such as review_event or reject_event, nor does it explain the decision flow or preconditions.

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