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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an authorization constraint ('you own') and non-obvious semantics ('null clears') for two fields, which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits error behavior, interaction between fields, and any return/auth-header handling detail for a mutation tool.

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, zero filler, first sentence front-loads the action and ownership scope, second enumerates the mutable fields. Every clause contributes information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the fields and clearing semantics adequately. It leaves gaps around permissions beyond ownership and the effect of toggling enabled/auto_on_revision, so it is viable but not thorough.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates six of the seven updatable fields and explains the null-clears semantics for prompt and reviewer_auth_header, which the schema's nullable types alone do not convey. Only reviewer_id is left to the schema, which documents it.

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 ('Update an agent-reviewer') and adds a scope qualifier ('you own') that distinguishes it from the bare CRUD siblings. It does not explicitly name create_reviewer/delete_reviewer as alternatives, but the action word makes the distinction clear.

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 phrase 'Pass any subset of ...' implies partial-update usage semantics, which is genuine guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use or routing to siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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