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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds what is actually destroyed (learned ignored regions and the relaxed threshold), that the step reverts to the global threshold, that it re-learns from future verdicts, and that it is owner-scoped. That is exactly the added context the annotations cannot convey.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the when-to-use and scoping notes follow. There is mild redundancy between "forget what earlier verdicts taught" and "starts learning afresh from future verdicts," but no filler sentences.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, trigger condition, and ownership scope, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents review_id. The description only adds that any status of review id works and that it must belong to the step, a marginal clarification over the schema's own text. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it forgets the learned ignored regions and relaxed similarity threshold for ONE step of the visual check. This is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what state changes, though it never names a specific sibling (e.g. resolve_visual_review or get_visual_review) to anchor the contrast.

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?

"Use when a review shows a learnedTolerance note and the ignored regions or relaxed threshold are hiding a real change" gives a clear triggering condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. when to prefer resolve_visual_review instead), so it stops short of the top band.

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