rsi_knowledge_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that approve relocates files to official directories and injects prohibitions, that reject archives rather than deletes, that no new bodies are created, and that approved conventions are recall-only with no rule files written. It does not mention irreversibility, permission needs, or what 'skip' does behaviorally.

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?

Each sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, with the side effects stated before the caveats. However, the entire text is then repeated verbatim in Chinese, roughly doubling length without adding information for a monolingual reader.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects well but omits the skip action and the entire batch-approval surface (all_pending, content_type, bootstrap_run_id, include_archived). An agent could not infer from the prose alone that bulk approval exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter including skip, ids, all_pending and bootstrap_run_id is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the approve/reject semantics that the action enum already encodes.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Approve pending norms') and spells out the result of each action (approve moves files and injects prohibitions, reject archives). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling rsi_review, which an agent would also consider for review-like work.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is clearly the tool for acting on pending items, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over rsi_review, rsi_knowledge_update or rsi_conflicts. The 'skip' action and the batch modes (all_pending, bootstrap_run_id) are entirely absent, so the agent gets no guidance on those paths.

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