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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive write, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not carry: the decision is stamped with the reviewer role 'agent' for lineage, decisions are immutable, and a revision must name the decision it supersedes. It also discloses the side effect that every cluster member is reassessed, which is meaningful for an agent anticipating downstream changes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the provenance and immutability notes. The all-caps clause is stylistically awkward but substantively earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 tool with five required params, nested objects, and two enums, the description covers mutation semantics, agent-role provenance, immutability, and the reassessment side effect — the key things a caller needs. It omits return values, but no output schema exists and the effect is described, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including the outcome/scope enums and the target.kind constraint. The description reinforces immutability and the supersede-relationship, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Record one scoped adjudication for a cluster') and adds the side effect that members are reassessed on their own checks, which distinguishes it from siblings like split_review_cluster, record_gate_result, and record_run_calibration_review. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the cluster-adjudication scope is specific enough to tell it apart.

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 usage context (post-review adjudication, preceding a dataset freeze whose approver reads the lineage), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route to alternatives such as split_review_cluster when a cluster should be divided. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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