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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly and non-idempotent, so the agent knows it mutates state. The description adds that it transitions a decision from changes_requested to pending_review. However, given openWorldHint is true, it could disclose potential side effects (e.g., notifications, external updates), which it does not. It adds some context but not exhaustive behavioral detail.

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 sentence that front-loads the trigger condition and clearly states the action. No redundant words or filler; every part serves a purpose.

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 state-transition tool, it gives the essential workflow: trigger, regenerate, call. It doesn't describe return values, but with no output schema that may be less critical. It could mention what to expect afterward (e.g., next poll_decision returns pending_review), but it's reasonably complete for its role.

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 57%, so some parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning—it only references 'the same decision' and implies decisionId. It doesn't clarify the roles of title, hatchId, tenantId, agentOutput, sessionToken, or timeoutSeconds beyond what the schema already provides. With moderate coverage, the description doesn't compensate, so it's adequate but not enhanced.

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: to reopen a decision as pending_review after poll_decision returns changes_requested. It uses a specific verb ('reopen') and resource ('same decision') and ties it to a precise state transition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like poll_decision and await_decision.

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 explicitly specifies when to call this tool (after poll_decision returns changes_requested) and instructs to 'regenerate' first, providing a clear precondition. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the context implies this is the continuation path rather than creating a new decision, making the usage guidance strong.

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