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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses role-based permissions, the requirement to review the exact requested version, and the terminal/irreversible nature of the state change. It also clearly states non-effects such as not resolving threads or revoking reviewer access.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: state transition, permissions and exclusions, and usage guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 state-transition tool with 4 required parameters, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, permissions, valid terminal states, and non-effects. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by tying 'completed' to reviewing the exact requested version, but most parameter meaning is already provided in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'transition', the resource 'pending review request', and the terminal states 'completed or cancelled'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not resolve threads, publish a version, or revoke reviewer access.

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 explicit conditions for when to use 'completed' versus 'cancelled', names the permitted actors (artifact owner, requester, assignee), and lists what the tool does not do. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the context is sufficient to guide selection among related tools like publish_version and request_review.

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