Store Review Recommendation

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It states the recommendation is 'advisory' and not applied, but does not disclose idempotency, error conditions, or required permissions. Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 sentence, concise but lacks structure. It could include parameter summaries or usage notes without sacrificing conciseness. It is acceptable but not optimal.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, many enums, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of parameters like kind, recommendation, or confidence. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 explain parameters, but it provides none. The seven parameters (kind, target_id, recommendation, rationale, recommended_by, evidence, confidence) are not described. The agent must infer meanings from names and enums, which is insufficient.

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: 'Store an advisory LLM/client review recommendation under inbox/review-recommendations/ without applying it.' It specifies the tool writes a recommendation without applying it, distinguishing it from siblings that apply or list recommendations.

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 implies usage for storing recommendations for later review, especially with 'without applying it', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory.review_recommendations or memory.review_recommendation_outcome. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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