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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine context beyond them: a creator-only authorization requirement and the mandatory reason on revision. It omits the consequential behavior an agent most needs — what accepting actually does (state transition, payment/escrow release, irreversibility) and retry/de-duplication semantics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the authorization constraint and then the two actions with their key modifier. Nothing is padded and nothing needs to be moved earlier.

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 five-parameter, decision-bearing mutation with no output schema, the definition covers who may call it and the decision options, but leaves the post-call consequences and the effect of idempotency_key unaddressed. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict the outcome of choosing 'accept' over 'revise'.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already carries (reason required for revise, deliverable defaults to latest) without adding format, valid-value, or idempotency_key guidance beyond the schema's own text, so it neither compensates for nor extends the structured documentation.

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 gives a specific verb pair (accept / request a revision) applied to a specific resource (the latest deliverable), and the 'Creator only' prefix adds a scope constraint that separates this review action from producer-side siblings such as submit_deliverable. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It implies when the tool applies (you are the task creator and a deliverable exists to be judged) and flags that a reason is mandatory for revisions. It never says when not to use it — for example when a disagreement should go through open_dispute instead, or whether revision can be requested more than once.

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