reels_review_asset

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the review gates downstream reuse, and rejection is the sanctioned alternative to silent substitution. It is silent on whether re-reviewing an existing variant overwrites a prior decision and on what the call returns, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the action and its precondition front-loaded and the outcome policy second. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With four required, entirely undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a write operation, the description is only partly sufficient — it never says what happens on success, whether a review is final, or what belongs in 'notes'. Adequate to invoke, but not to invoke confidently.

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 has to carry the load. It explains the consequence of each 'status' value and ties 'variant' to a specific imported asset, but 'notes' (10-1000 chars) is left entirely unexplained — an agent must guess whether it is a rationale, a defect list, or a prompt transcript.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Record the AI visual review of a specific imported variant.' That is clearly distinct from reels_preview_asset (inspection) and reels_import_asset (ingestion), though it stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

It supplies a clear precondition ('after inspecting it in preview') and a decision rule for the outcome ('Verified variants may be reused; reject inferior variants rather than silently substituting them'). It does not state any exclusion or anti-pattern beyond that, which keeps it just under a 5.

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