hermes_request_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key effects: the document moves from WIP to In-Review and notifies assigned approvers. It does not address permissions, reversibility, failure modes, or output behavior, so it is informative but not fully transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences with the primary action and state change first, followed by prerequisite and ID requirement. No fluff or repetition; every sentence carries useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, side effects, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps around error handling and permissions exist, but the tool is simple enough that this feels sufficient.

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 100% and already explains document_id as the SharePoint objectID of the draft. The description reinforces this by specifying it must be a draft and can come from list/create operations, but it doesn't add substantial new 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 states a specific verb (Publish/request review), the resource (draft document), and the exact state transition (WIP to 'In-Review'). It clearly differentiates from nearby siblings like hermes_update_draft, hermes_approve_document, and hermes_get_document by focusing on the publication-for-review action.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite: approvers must already be set, and explicitly directs users to hermes_update_draft to add them. It also scopes the document_id to a SharePoint objectID of a draft. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion list, but the usage context is solid.

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