review_form_release_scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is partially covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the review is local-only, does not authorize execution, and does not establish a trusted baseline, which tells the agent the output is advisory and not a gate for later mutations. It still does not say what the review returns or whether findings are actionable.

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?

Two short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is reviewed and the boundary conditions of the review. The most decision-relevant constraint (local, non-authorizing) is placed up front with no filler.

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 read-only review tool with a nested, untyped plan object and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about what a review produces: findings, pass/fail, or a report. The scope and safety boundaries are clear, but the shape of inputs and results is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 25%, so the description must add meaning. It does map conceptually onto three of the four parameters by naming the plan, the XML paths, and the components, and 'explicitly selected' conveys that the caller supplies the approval scope. But it says nothing about the untyped plan object's expected shape, the 3000-path and 240-component limits, or the environment_profile parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: review a previously returned form package plan against explicitly selected XML paths and components. That is concrete enough to act on, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as audit_form_release_package, inspect_form_candidate_scope, or review_release_dependencies, which an agent must choose between.

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 phrase 'previously returned form package plan' implies a prerequisite: a plan must already exist. The negations 'does not authorize execution or establish a trusted baseline' implicitly rule out the apply and baseline-capture siblings. However, no alternative is named and no condition is given for choosing this review over audit_form_release_package or preview_isolated_form_release, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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