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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful authorization context beyond that, plus the scope boundary around hiding content, but says nothing about irreversibility of a review decision or error behavior on version conflicts.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the purpose comes first and the scope caveat second.

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 mutation tool with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, the description covers the essential authorization prerequisite and the boundary with content hiding. It is nearly complete, though it could note the effect of the version check or that a resolved/dismissed decision is generally final.

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 all five parameters (including the resolved/dismissed enum and op_key idempotency semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states specific verbs (resolve/dismiss) and a specific resource (a report), and immediately scopes who may invoke it ('you are authorized to review'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'moderate' by noting that hiding content is a separate operation.

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 a clear precondition (you must be authorized to review) and partially routes the agent elsewhere by clarifying that hiding content is a separate operation. It does not, however, name the specific sibling tool that handles hiding content or explain when to prefer dismissal over resolution.

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