legitify.review_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a write operation, but it does not explain whether the receipt is persisted, whether it finalizes or mutates the request, what permissions are required, or what happens to the request after a denied or needs_info decision. This is a significant gap for a review/mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler and captures the core action plus the valid decision values. It is concise without being tautological, though it does sacrifice some behavioral context elsewhere.

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 and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether the receipt is final, what response the agent should expect, or how to verify the effect (e.g., via get_attestation_status). It covers the required fields but omits broader context needed for safe and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the two required parameters: the existing attestation_request_id and the decision values. It leaves notes, scope, and reviewed_by to be inferred from their names, with no clarification of formats, optionality, or how they interact with the decision.

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 ('Write'), a specific resource ('human attestation receipt'), and the target ('existing attestation_request_id'), with the decision values listed. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like submit_attestation_request or get_attestation_status, so an agent can tell they are different operations.

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 'for an existing attestation_request_id' implies this tool is used after a request has been created, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to use this tool instead of them, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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