review

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating tool via readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: closing flags does not delete substantive counterevidence. It does not cover authorization or side effects in more depth, but with annotations present this is solid context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the possible actions and followed by a key behavioral caveat. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

The tool has a rich oneOf schema and an output schema, reducing what the description must carry. The description adequately names all three actions and one important side-effect nuance, though it could say more about the distinction between opening and closing flags.

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 100%, so the schema already documents fields like request_id and expected_revision in detail. The description restates the three action modes but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verbs and resources: opening/closing review flags and linking an answer to a question. It clearly covers the three action modes, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as sync_review.

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 action list implies when the tool is used, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing between open, close, and answer, nor when to prefer this tool over sibling review-related operations. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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