Review submitted project work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that this is a decision action ('complete or reopen') and that feedback should be 'useful,' which aligns with the note parameter. It also reveals an authorization requirement not captured in annotations. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by an important prerequisite. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only moderate annotations. The description covers the core action but does not mention return values, side effects, or how this differs from closely related siblings. Given the tool's simplicity and idempotentHint, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides partial meaning for 'decision' (complete or reopen) and 'note' (feedback), but does not explain assignment_id or idempotency_key. With 4 parameters and only 2 lightly covered, the description is insufficient to fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Complete submitted work or reopen it with useful feedback.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like approve_version/reject_version by focusing on work assignments rather than versions. The title 'Review submitted project work' reinforces the purpose.

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 states a clear prerequisite: 'Requires separately delegated work-review authority.' This tells the agent when this tool is available, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like approve_version/reject_version or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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