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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the state change (SUBMITTED -> ACCEPTED), the requirement to include a reason, and the notification to the human. This covers the key behavioral traits, though it does not mention potential errors or response format.

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 description is four sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the state change, the reason requirement, the notification, and the alternative. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the core 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 simple state-transition tool with three params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: precondition, effect, side effect, and alternative. It does not mention the return value, but that is a minor gap for this kind of tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the 'reason' parameter by saying 'Include a clear reason explaining what needs fixing,' but this adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific purpose: 'Request changes on submitted work' and explains the state transition ('Moves job back to ACCEPTED so the human can resubmit'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool approve_completion by explicitly mentioning it as an alternative for satisfactory work.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: the job must be in SUBMITTED state. It also names an alternative tool ('Use approve_completion instead if the work is satisfactory'), giving clear direction on choosing between the two related operations.

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