ae_decide_review

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the decision action and notes, but does not disclose side effects, whether the decision can be changed, permission requirements, or what happens to the saved review item after the call.

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 core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 three-parameter tool, the description captures the essential action, but it lacks context about return values, side effects, or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more behavioral context would be needed to make it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'notes' without elaborating on review_id or decision semantics. While the parameter names and enum are self-explanatory, the description adds little meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 uses the specific verbs 'Approve or reject' with the resource 'saved preview review item,' making the tool's action and target clear. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ae_create_review and ae_list_reviews, which handle creation and listing rather than decision-making.

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 word 'saved' implies the review item already exists, which suggests this tool is used after ae_create_review, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not name alternative tools or conditions, leaving usage largely to inference.

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