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

The description explains the full behavioral impact of each decision: accept advances the baseline and makes the next build clean; deny records rejection without changing baseline; ignore persistently excludes the story from the gate while the snapshot keeps differing. It also discloses the unresolved-comment refusal condition and project-key attribution, going well beyond the sparse annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, per-decision effects, workflow context, and a critical refusal condition. It is front-loaded with the action and scoping, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the workflow, the meaning of each decision, the persistent behavior of ignore, the unresolved-comment constraint, and the source of the required ID. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining where diffResultId comes from ('from get_build/get_diff') and by giving the behavioral consequence of each decision enum value, which the schema only names.

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 'Record a review on a single diff result', a specific verb and resource, and the title narrows it to 'one story's change'. It clearly distinguishes this from build-level tools like accept_build by emphasizing the per-story, per-diff scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after you've inspected the diff (e.g. with render_diff_image) and decided intended vs. regression.' It also states when-not: accept and ignore are refused while an unresolved review comment exists, while deny is always allowed. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the same decision, so it falls just short of a 5.

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