review_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, whether it overwrites prior reviews, permission requirements, or how it interacts with change status. The brevity of 'Record a review' provides no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the literal act.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and the valid decisions. It is appropriately short, though it omits essential context that would make the conciseness effective.

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 three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple overlapping siblings, the description is far too incomplete. It does not clarify relationships to approve_change/request_changes, does not mention prerequisites (e.g., change must exist), and leaves return behavior unknown. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It names the decision values, helping for the 'decision' field, but does not mention the 'comment' parameter at all, nor clarify that change_id is the identifier. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves the comment field unexplained.

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 action 'Record a review' on a change request and enumerates the three possible decisions (APPROVED, CHANGES_REQUESTED, COMMENTED), which differentiates it from sibling tools like approve_change and request_changes that handle only one decision each. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, leaving some ambiguity about redundancy.

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 given on when to use this tool versus approve_change, request_changes, or update_change. Given the overlapping sibling tools, an agent would not know if this is the general mechanism or if the specialized siblings are preferred.

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