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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it spells out the concrete consequence of each decision (approve promotes the live capture to the new approved baseline; reject fails the owning replay run) and adds an auth scoping note ('owner-scoped to your account'). The mutation/non-idempotent flags are already in annotations, and irreversibility is left implicit, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded sentence that places the action, the prerequisite, the two decision meanings, and the scoping constraint in priority order. No filler, and the quoted decision tokens make the branching scannable.

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 non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key effects, prerequisites, and scoping an agent needs. It doesn't state the return shape or error behavior, but the essential decision-making context is present.

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 meaning by defining what 'approve' and 'reject' actually do, which the bare enum labels do not convey. It does not describe the 'note' parameter, but the schema already 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 (resolve) and resource (visual review candidate) and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-side siblings by naming get_visual_review as the inspection step and implying list_visual_reviews supplies the id. An agent can tell what this does versus visual_compare or get_visual_review without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: resolve only 'after inspecting it (via get_visual_review)', which names the prerequisite tool. It clearly maps the two decisions to outcomes, but offers no exclusion ('don't call before inspecting') beyond the implied ordering, so it lands just short of a full when/when-not statement.

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