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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that the transition is terminal, outlines permission constraints (owner, requester, or assignee), and explicitly lists excluded side-effects (threads, publish, access revocation). This goes beyond the annotations to set accurate expectations.

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 concise two sentences, with the core action stated immediately. Every sentence adds value: the first identifies the state transition and actors, the second clarifies limitations and usage condition. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description fully covers the essential aspects for correct operation: the terminal nature, actor restrictions, excluded behaviors, and a prescriptive condition for the 'completed' status. Combined with a complete input schema and output schema, the agent has all necessary context to 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds a bit of semantic nuance (e.g., 'completed only after reviewing the exact requested version' for the status parameter), but this is largely redundant with the schema descriptions. It does not meaningfully enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what is already present.

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 tool's purpose: 'Transition a pending review request to the terminal completed or cancelled state.' It identifies the specific resource (review request) and the action (transition), distinguishing it from sibling tools like request_review or publish_version by focusing on the terminal state.

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 provides explicit usage context: it specifies who can perform the transition, what the tool does NOT do (does not resolve threads, publish a version, or revoke reviewer access), and gives a clear condition for when to use 'completed' (only after reviewing the exact requested version). This effectively guides the agent on when and how to apply the tool versus alternatives.

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