Record Review Recommendation Outcome

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context that this tool records only, not applying the recommendation. It discloses the non-destructive mutational behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 of 25 words, efficiently conveying the core action without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple recording tool with an output schema and clear parameters, the description is largely complete. It could mention prerequisites or side effects, but the core function and non-application are covered.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters. However, parameter names (id, status, reviewer, reason) are self-explanatory, and the status enum clarifies accepted/rejected. The description adds no extra meaning 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'record' and the resource 'advisory review recommendation artifact', and specifies the action of recording accepted/rejected status without applying it. It distinguishes from related siblings like 'memory.review_recommendation' and 'memory.review_recommendation_outcome_report'.

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 when to use (to log a decision without execution) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The phrase 'without applying it' provides some context but lacks direct guidance on selecting this tool over other review-related tools.

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