Abstain from review

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the -32010 error when no open review is addressed to the caller, the resulting state (abstained), and the fact that this state is non-terminal with named follow-up tools.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: purpose, alternative differentiation, error condition, and state/exit paths. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the differentiation clause is dense enough that it is slightly heavier than strictly needed.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the precondition (open review addressed to caller), the failure mode (-32010), and the post-state with onward routes. Params are fully covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the enum. The description only alludes to category values ('conflict of interest', 'want of context'), adding marginal semantic color rather than new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (stand aside from a review) and the scope (a participant who cannot decide), and explicitly contrasts itself with chap.decide.reject: abstaining judges nothing and leaves the artefact intact. An agent can distinguish it from decide.reject without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-not path (use in place of chap.decide.reject) and the precondition that selects this tool: an open review addressed to the caller. It also names the recovery routes (chap.escalate.raise, fresh chap.review.request) when the abstention is not the end of the story.

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