Request review

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the rule is frozen once the review opens and a conflicting later request is refused with -32014, that a different artefact on an open review is likewise refused, that only workspace members can actually decide, and that the deadline is recorded but not acted upon by the coordinator. These are exactly the behavioral traits (idempotency-by-add, immutability, error codes) an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its recipients, followed by the follow-up path and the re-request semantics. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 output schema, the description covers the workflow, the immutability rules, and the failure codes (-32014) adequately. It is silent on what the call returns (e.g. a review identifier) and on permission prerequisites for the caller supplying `from`, which is a minor residual gap.

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, and the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema silos cannot: the same-artefact/same-rule repeat semantics for `to` and `artefact`, and the fact that omitting `rule` on a later request leaves it untouched. It does not add new guidance on `from`, `task_id`, or `workspace` beyond what the schema already says.

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 ("Open a review on a task") and the scoping object ("address it to one or more reviewers"). It also names the downstream decision tools, so an agent can place this tool in the workflow relative to chap.decide.approve/reject/override and chap.abstain.declare without opening any 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?

The description routes the agent clearly: this opens the review, the addressed reviewers then call chap.decide.* or chap.abstain.declare, and re-requesting with the same artefact widens the reviewer set. It does not, however, state when *not* to use it (e.g. against a draft that has no task yet, or instead of chap.task.route), so exclusions are absent.

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