post_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses that 'approve' completes the task and 'request_changes' resubmits with comments. It also states the self-review prohibition. Missing details like notifications or permission requirements, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Very concise: a single lead sentence followed by a focused explanation of the two verdicts and a key constraint. No redundant words.

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 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description provides essential behavior but omits explanation of two parameters and does not mention error states or limits. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It only partially explains 'verdict' (listing values) and 'comments' (attached to briefing). 'submission_id' and 'agent_id' receive no explanation, leaving ambiguity about their roles.

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 'Post' and the resource 'verdict on a submission', listing the two permissible values 'approve' and 'request_changes'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_for_review or get_review_queue.

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 explains the consequences of each verdict: 'approve completes the task' and 'request_changes sends it straight back to the author as in_progress'. It also includes a critical constraint: 'You cannot review your own submission.' However, it does not compare to alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool beyond self-review.

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