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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the return shape (inlineReview assets with image URLs/markdown to render in chat, reviewUrl as a secondary Sequencer link) and the client-dependent behavior (Spark may open an in-app modal). It omits whether the call blocks or is async and any state/permission implications, but the behavioral disclosure is well above average for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then behavior, then usage timing in four dense sentences with essentially no filler. It is slightly long, but each clause (return format, secondary link, modal behavior, workflow timing) carries information an agent needs.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral and workflow context: what is returned, how to surface it, and when to invoke it. Only the sync/async nature of the request and any follow-up expectations are left unstated, a minor gap.

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 workspaceId, editId, and assetIds are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or ordering detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request the user to review and approve/reject specific assets'), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from sibling tools like set_asset_approval_status (agent-sets status) and review_edit, but never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('Recommended after the initial character/location pass in a proposal build before expensive shot generation') and a when-optional condition ('optional for later incremental edits or explicit user-directed asset creation'). Clear context is provided, but no alternative tool is named for the case where the agent should do something else.

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