start_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the server enforces a protocol and refuses to advance until phases are complete, that submissions are quality-gated against padding, near-duplicates, restating the claim, and copied items, and what the initial response contains. This is rich behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial and error.

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 purpose, then a scannable mode list, then args and returns. The mode descriptions are long but each earns its place by defining a distinct mode. Slight verbosity in the preamble, but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the Returns block explains the shape of the response (review_id, phase list, first-phase instructions with format, minimums, and quality checks). Combined with the mode semantics and protocol disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% (bare 'Mode', 'Claim', 'Context' titles with no descriptions), so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the exact valid mode strings with meanings, gives a concrete claim example, and explains context's purpose including that it is repeated in every phase. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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+resource ('Start a structured stress-test of a claim or decision') and then enumerates five named modes, making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like submit, get_verdict, or export_report. An agent knows immediately this is the entry point that creates a review.

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 mode-selection guidance for each of the five modes, including an explicit escalation rule ('gauntlet ... Use it for decisions that really matter'). It does not spell out when to choose start_review over other lifecycle siblings, but the creation-vs-follow-up distinction is strongly implied by the description and Returns block.

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