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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a post-hoc write to an existing review, intended to finalize headline findings only after the work is complete. It does not contradict 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation, the second explains when and why to use it, and the third gives a preference over an alternative. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema is almost complete. It explains when to call it, why, and where the effect occurs. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention that a valid claim_token is required for authorization, but the schema already handles that.

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%, and every parameter already has a clear description in the schema, including the auth role of claim_token and the semantics of compared_to. The tool description only re-emphasizes 'summary and/or title' and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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: 'Update a review's summary and/or title after the fact.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning the update as the way to land the verdict at the top of the review, rather than adding intermediate notes or screenshots. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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 gives an explicit timing rule: use it at the END of a run to place the verdict at the top. It also tells the agent to prefer this tool over burying conclusions in a closing note, which is a clear alternative-avoidance instruction. This is strong, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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