abandon_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles the key behavioral facts: abandoned reviews remain listed, accept no further submissions, and produce no verdict; completed reviews cannot be abandoned. It omits author/permission requirements and whether the action is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by state effects and the exclusion, then a compact Args/Returns block. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, preconditions, and parameter constraints adequately, and hints at the return shape. Missing authorization/prerequisite context is the only notable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: review_id is given a concrete format example ('rev-x9k2') and reason is flagged as required and non-empty, a constraint absent from the schema. It does not describe length limits or valid reason content.

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 (abandon) and resource (unfinished review) and scopes it to reviews that are 'no longer worth finishing.' The second sentence distinguishes this lifecycle transition from sibling operations like start_review or get_verdict by clarifying what an abandoned review is and is not.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use it (unfinished review not worth finishing) and when not to (completed reviews, whose verdict is final). This is a genuine exclusion that prevents a wrong call, matching the sibling-routing standard.

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