scf_accept_cdm_proposal

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries meaningful behavioral weight. It explicitly discloses that this is a write operation requiring an editor role, and that accepting flips both the proposal and every citation under it together. This adds genuine context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and role, and then adds the key scoping behavior about the whole card. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, who can use it, and the scope of the effect. The schema supplies parameter provenance, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both org_id and proposal_id described and including acquisition sources. The description adds no direct parameter-level detail beyond identifying the resource as a control-level CDM proposal, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Accept a control-level CDM proposal'. It adds the write action and editor role, and clarifies scope by saying one decision covers the whole card. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like scf_dismiss_cdm_proposal and scf_list_cdm_proposals.

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 implies when to use it: when accepting a control-level CDM proposal. It gives useful context by noting the editor role requirement and the whole-card atomicity of the decision. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action verb and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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