record_asset_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool cannot override a failed gate, but it omits write semantics, idempotency, permission requirements, validation of inspected_paths, and what happens when a review is recorded repeatedly.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to gaps covered under other dimensions rather than excess verbosity.

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?

This is a complex seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description adds one important guardrail but leaves most operational context missing, including return behavior and how gate status interacts with approved.

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% for seven required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at 'current-attempt evidence' and the failed-gate constraint; it does not explain batch_id, asset_id, stage, attempt, approved, notes, or inspected_paths formats and interactions.

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 verb and object: 'Record the agent's inspection of current-attempt evidence,' which is clearer than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling review or retry tools, so the scope is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 'cannot override a failed gate' gives one usage restriction, but the description never states when to call this versus alternatives such as retry_asset_stage, nor does it explain prerequisites like the relevant stage or attempt lifecycle.

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