Close a review by recording its outcome: passed, failed, or needs_fix. Add optional notes to document the decision rationale.
Close a review by recording a decision: "passed" (looks good, no action), "failed" (issue confirmed, should not ship), or "needs_fix" (issue confirmed, fix-and-retry).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| notes | No | Optional rationale for the decision. | |
| decision | Yes | Outcome: passed | failed | needs_fix |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each decision value, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the review becomes immutable or triggers notifications), leaving some transparency gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close a review') and immediately defines the decision options. There is no wasted wording, and it achieves high information density.
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?
The tool has three parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the core action and decision meanings. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the review must be claimed) or what happens after closing, which could be important for correct usage. For a simple write operation, this is 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 67% (decision and notes have descriptions; id does not). The description explains the decision enum meanings, which enriches the schema. However, it does not clarify what 'id' refers to (presumably the review ID), and it does not add detail to 'notes' beyond the schema. With coverage above 50%, the baseline is 3, and the added decision semantics justify this score.
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 states a clear verb ('Close a review') and a specific resource ('review'), and explicitly enumerates the three decision values with their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling review tools like invariance_review_claim and invariance_review_unclaim, which handle other lifecycle steps.
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 the tool is used to finalize a review with a decision, and the decision semantics clarify the expected action. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when a review is not yet claimed). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.