cassette_review_completion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that rendering only starts for decision=export and that this should be called as an immediate follow-up. However, it does not explain what happens for continue, needs_user, or failed decisions, nor whether the tool mutates job state in a way that requires caution.

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 two dense sentences with important information front-loaded: the decision condition appears first, then the specific usage scenario. Some wording is repetitive ('explicit... export' appears twice), but overall it is efficient and focused.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with four parameters, an enum, and no annotation support. The description covers the main export trigger well and tells the agent exactly when to act, but it omits the meaning of the other enum decisions, the role of reason and summary, and how this tool relates to the surrounding cassette job lifecycle tools.

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. It explains the decision=export value and ties it to rendering, but it does not clarify job_id, reason, or summary semantics. The agent is left to guess what reason text is expected and whether summary is required for certain decisions.

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 identifies the action ('Resolve a review-required completion') and specifies the key behavior: rendering starts only with an explicit, validated decision=export. It is more specific than a tautology, though 'review-required completion' is not fully defined and the agent must infer the exact resource from context.

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 gives a concrete trigger condition: cassette_run_job(export=true) triggered by the user's explicit export request, and instructs the agent to call this tool immediately in the same turn. It also explicitly warns against re-asking the user for authorization. However, it does not describe when to prefer sibling tools such as cassette_job_status or cassette_cancel_job for other outcomes.

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