review_contradiction

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

With no annotations, the description carries extra weight, and it does add real value: it discloses the side effect (writes into a persistent audit trail) and that reviewer identity plus notes are recorded. It still omits whether the transition is idempotent, what happens if the record is already reviewed, or whether permissions are required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state change is stated first and the audit-trail consequence follows.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: the state transition and the audit-trail write. It is nearly complete, missing only lifecycle signaling (idempotency, prior-state requirements) relative to its many sibling transition 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented structurally — baseline 3. The description restates 'reviewer identity' and 'optional notes' without adding format, constraints, or usage nuance beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Marks a contradiction record as REVIEWED' clearly states the state transition and target entity. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings with overlapping semantics such as resolve_contradiction, dismiss_contradiction, and reopen_contradiction, which an agent must disambiguate.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when to pick 'review' over 'resolve', 'dismiss', or 'reopen' — a significant omission given four sibling tools operate on the same contradiction lifecycle.

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