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

readOnlyHint=false already signals a write, but the description adds genuine context beyond it: the warning that the call 'changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly' and the distinction that the underlying record is immutable while only the view moves. Transition rules and auth requirements are not covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and status values, followed by the write warning. Slightly dense with em-dash appositives but no wasted text.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core write semantics and record/view distinction, but omits whether transitions are constrained (e.g., can adopted revert to unreviewed?) and what authorization the undocumented secret parameter implies.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It enumerates the status values and characterizes entry_id as 'one of your entries,' but those values duplicate the schema enum, and the third parameter (secret) is never mentioned.

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 action (change an entry's review_status) and enumerates the four target values, then distinguishes this from record mutation with 'the record never moves, the view does.' That contrast helps separate it from journal_write, though it doesn't name siblings directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'mutable working view, deliberately outside the hash' framing suggests this is for view-only status changes as opposed to record writes. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many siblings.

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