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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses the audience restriction (internal staff), the fact that this is a record-keeping write rather than a state-resolving action, and the actual resolution path (nightly check after two clean production runs, or a human for critic/agent findings). It omits idempotency and return behavior.

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?

Front-loads the access restriction, then the action, then the critical caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the final clause about 'the record shows the fix working, not just the fix shipping' is slightly rhetorical and could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema and only a weak annotation, the description supplies the lifecycle context an agent needs: when to call, who may call, and that success does not mean the finding is closed. It lacks detail on what the record returns or whether repeat calls are safe, which is a minor gap for a 3-param mutation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic constraint by specifying the finding must be 'accepted' — narrowing which finding_id values are valid — and by tying pull_request_number to a PR that fixes it and is already open.

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 and resource: record the pull request that fixes an accepted self-review finding. This clearly distinguishes it from the read/list siblings (get-self-review-findings-tool) and the creation sibling (propose-self-review-finding-tool). An agent knows exactly what the operation writes.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Call it once the PR is open') and a scope gate ('Internal Coderbuds staff only'), plus the important negative: this does not resolve the finding. It does not name alternative tools for resolution, but the when-to-use context is concrete.

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