lore_review_suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: independent processing per item, no deletion of suggestion rows (audit trail), fallback type on accept, and idempotency with 'skipped' status. This covers all critical behavioral traits.

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 concise (~100 words) with a clear, front-loaded main action. Each sentence adds necessary detail without fluff. The structure (overview, process details, idempotency) is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch processing with side effects), the description sufficiently explains independence, idempotency, status updates, and fallback behavior. An output schema exists further complementing the documentation, so no additional return value info is needed.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It confirms action values ('accept'/'reject') and that suggestion_ids can be one or many, but these are already clear from the schema types and descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Accept or reject one or more link suggestions'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like lore_get_suggestions (retrieval) and lore_recommend_links (generation).

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 usage for reviewing suggestions after retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use lore_get_suggestions first). No when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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