accept_candidate

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that 'target_kind overrides candidate's kind' and 'thread_id optional,' but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the candidate after materialization. This provides minimal additional behavioral 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action, and the second explains key parameter behaviors. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool has three parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the basic purpose and two optional parameters but omits details like prerequisites (e.g., candidate must exist), return format, or error conditions. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'target_kind overrides candidate's kind' and noting 'thread_id optional.' This clarifies the purpose of two out of three parameters, though 'id' is implied but not explicitly described.

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 clearly states the verb 'Materialize' and the resource 'candidate into its target table,' indicating the core action. It mentions optional parameters and an override behavior, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'reject_candidate' to differentiate usage contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reject_candidate' or other candidate-related tools. It lacks explicit context, examples, or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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