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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral detail on top: rejected assets drop out of default listings and become prunable, and single-id calls make `selected` exclusive per scene while bulk calls deliberately do not, with the reason why (a bulk over one scene would keep resetting itself).

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and the id/ids rule, then the consequences. The aside about review fields going unused is motivational framing that costs a clause, but it is brief and the whole thing stays tight for the amount of semantics conveyed.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation tool, the description covers the important consequences (rejection removing assets from listings, selection semantics) and the annotations cover idempotency/safety. It omits auth/permission requirements and any indication of what the call returns, which are minor but real gaps.

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 semantics the schema does not carry: the id/ids mutual-exclusion rationale, the per-scene exclusivity of `selected` for single-id calls, and the downstream effect of `verdict`. That is meaningful added meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Review generated assets: set verdict (accepted|rejected|pending) and/or selected', and enumerates the enum values. It is clearly distinct from listing tools like lab_list_assets or lab_review_queue, though it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass ONE id, or `ids` for bulk, and explains that after a generation run there are usually dozens to sort, which justifies the bulk path. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g. where to fetch the ids to review) or state explicit when-not conditions.

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