Set hunk decision (deprecated alias)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, required permissions, or side effects. The description offers no behavioral information whatsoever—it doesn't even mention that it performs a write operation or mention any state changes. It is completely opaque.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is so under-specified that it fails to convey any useful information. The brevity comes at the cost of substance, not as a result of tight, informative writing.

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 complexity (10 params, no output schema, no annotations), this description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or relationship to the aliased tool in any concrete way, leaving the agent with no way to correctly invoke it without external knowledge.

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%, and the description provides absolutely no information about any of the 10 parameters, including the 5 required ones. The agent is left without any context for what 'sessionId', 'hunkId', 'status', 'expectedVersion', or 'idempotencyKey' mean in this context.

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 states it is a compatibility alias for article_review_set_patch_decision, which indirectly implies its purpose but does not actually describe what the tool does. The agent is left to infer meaning from the sibling tool, and the description fails to state a verb+resource or explain the decision-setting action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the primary tool or any alternatives. The description merely labels it as an alias but does not explain when a user might prefer it, nor does it offer any explicit usage context or exclusions.

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