Gate and commit low-risk children

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool combines multiple gated review/commit steps, does not skip gates, and has preconditions and reviewer eligibility rules. It still does not describe error behavior, reversibility, or auth expectations, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the name and title.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary constraint, and every sentence provides a distinct piece of information: currency, alternative path, prerequisite, and reviewer edge case. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Routing and usage context are strong, and the sibling tool list makes the high-risk alternative clear. However, given no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain post-call behavior, failure semantics, or what happens when gates are not satisfied. It is sufficient for selection but does not fully ground invocation in edge or failure cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate, but it does not explain the essential fields. It only indirectly hints at `parentTaskId` and the concept of the reviewer, while leaving `reviewerId`, `decisions`, `idempotencyKey`, and `expectedVersion` unexplained at the semantic level. An agent consulting the description alone would struggle to construct a valid request with confidence.

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 action and resource: front-line work is recorded, check and verify reviews are done, then commit is performed in one call, strictly for low or medium risk children. It also distinguishes this tool from the high-risk path by explicitly naming the alternative sequence of tools. An agent can understand exactly what this tool is for and what it is not for.

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?

Usage direction is explicit: use it for low or medium risk only; do not use it for high or critical work, which must go through luna-verifier plus result_check, result_verify, and task_commit. It also includes a prerequisite ('children must already be candidate') and a special direct-mission reviewer rule, giving strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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