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

The description fully discloses the persistent side effects of each decision: accept changes the baseline so the next build is clean, deny records rejection without changing baseline, ignore permanently excludes the story from the gate while the snapshot keeps differing. It also notes attribution to the project key, which is useful context beyond the 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 information-dense but not bloated; it front-loads the core purpose and then expands each decision. Every sentence adds either behavioral clarity or workflow guidance, and the length is justified by the need to distinguish three decision outcomes.

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 two-parameter write operation with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers the workflow, side effects, parameter sourcing, and decision criteria. No critical operational detail 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 both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the real-world consequences of each decision value and reinforcing that diffResultId comes from get_build/get_diff, but it does not introduce semantics the schema entirely lacks.

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 ('Record a review on a single diff result') and then defines each decision outcome ('accept' makes the candidate the new baseline, 'deny' records rejection, 'ignore' persists gate exclusion). The title and 'single diff result' wording distinguish it from build-level siblings like accept_build.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use after you've inspected the diff (e.g. with render_diff_image) and decided intended vs. regression.' It also gives a concrete use case for 'ignore' (intentional ongoing diffs like animation or live timestamp). It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling alternative like accept_build, so no exclusions are stated.

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