Create article review from full proposal (deprecated)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a compatibility tool and that it creates a review, but it doesn't mention side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing reviews, requires specific permissions, or how it handles the proposal content. The deprecation note is useful but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.

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 very concise, two sentences, and front-loads the deprecation and preferred alternative. It earns its place by providing critical usage guidance. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the key parameters, but it's appropriately sized for a deprecated tool.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, the effect of creating a review, or how the parameters interact. The deprecation note and alternative are helpful, but for a tool that still exists, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly, especially since it's a compatibility tool.

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 for parameter meaning. The description only mentions 'base + complete proposal' and 'title', but doesn't explain the structure of base/proposal (inline vs workspace_file), the format/locale/topics parameters, or initialPageSize. The schema provides some structure but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool creates an article review from a full proposal, and explicitly marks it as deprecated. It distinguishes itself from the preferred alternative by naming article_review_submit_patchset, which helps differentiate it from siblings. However, it doesn't fully elaborate on the exact mechanics of 'create' beyond the title.

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 explicitly says to prefer article_review_submit_patchset, providing a clear alternative and when-not-to-use guidance. It frames this tool as a compatibility tool for base + complete proposal, which gives context on when it might still be used. This is strong usage guidance.

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