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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds helpful context about server-side behavior ('stores only bounded metadata and an attested outcome'), which explains what persists. However, it does not disclose other behavioral nuances such as side effects on the local agent, error handling, or return semantics.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a key constraint. It is concise with no redundant words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, required idempotency and version fields, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how parameters relate, what the expected version means, how idempotency works, or what the attested outcome represents. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters (including a nested 'details' object and required fields like idempotencyKey and expectedVersion), the description provides no explanation of any parameter's meaning, format, or purpose. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema, leaving the agent to guess the roles of fields like sessionId, executionId, and expectedVersion.

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 action ('refresh') and the resource ('local change review'), with an additional note about server storage behavior that distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_change_review or list_change_reviews. It is specific about what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus that tool, nor does it mention alternatives like create_local_change_review or get_change_review. It implies refreshing an existing review but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it.

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