Record an independent review decision

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the enforcement rule that all evidence is verified against the actual files, which implies submissions can fail validation on unverifiable quotes. It also states the per-outcome evidence obligations. It stops short of saying what happens on a failed check or whether a decision can be revised later.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the mode prerequisite and evidence rules. The 'For the reviewer process:' opening is slightly clipped but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the result story, and it does not say what the tool returns or what an agent sees after a successful or rejected review. For a state-mutating review tool with 7 parameters, the mechanics of failure and the returned decision record are a material 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 57% and the description adds real meaning for outcome by spelling out what counts as valid evidence for confirm versus reject. However, it restates reviewer_token already documented in the schema, never mentions the severity parameter, and introduces an 'absent search' evidence kind that the schema's evidence.type const ('quote' only) cannot express.

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 (record/review) and resource (one finding) with the exact decision vocabulary (confirm, downgrade, reject), scoped to 'the reviewer process'. It is clearly distinct from sibling recorders like elliot_record_claim or elliot_record_behavior, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the split.

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 a clear situational frame ('for the reviewer process') plus a mode-specific prerequisite: supply the audit-scoped reviewer_token from the evidence packet in isolated mode. It does not route the agent away from alternatives (e.g. elliot_review_packet) or say what to do when a finding is not yet reviewable, so the exclusion half is missing.

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