shorts_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Append' implies additive mutation, but it does not say whether re-reviewing the same candidate_id overwrites, duplicates, or errors, nor what permissions or side effects are involved. '(source-free)' hints at a constraint but is never explained.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action. The only waste is the cryptic '(source-free)' parenthetical, which adds words without adding meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, four undocumented parameters, and only a one-line description, this is under-specified. The presence of an output schema relieves some return-value burden, but nothing explains prerequisites, duplicate handling, or parameter meaning.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not mention any parameter. The ambiguous 'decision' field (anyOf string/object) and 'evidence_ref' are left entirely unexplained, and 'plan_path_or_dir' accepts either a file or directory with no guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: appending a human review decision to a saved shorts plan. That distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like shorts_plan_show, shorts_render, and shorts_package. The parenthetical '(source-free)' is unexplained jargon and does not help the agent understand the 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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus shorts_plan_show, video_review_decide, or video_review_decision, all of which plausibly overlap. The only implicit cue is that a 'saved shorts plan' must already exist, which is not stated as a prerequisite.

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