review_record

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses statuses and some review rules, but it does not state whether this is a write/mutation tool, whether records are overwritten, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the category-specific checklists and usage rules. The line-based structure is somewhat dense, but there is little 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?

For a complex tool with five required parameters, a nested observations object, two enums, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It covers the kind-specific observation categories and evidence rule, but omits method semantics, config_path meaning, and behavioral/side-effect context.

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. It adds useful meaning for 'kind' by mapping each kind to specific observation categories and clarifies that 'evidence' should explain not_applicable items. But it never explains the 'method' enum or the required 'config_path' parameter, leaving two of five required parameters undocumented.

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 says to 'Bind actual observations to current sources/config/scene/build' and lists review statuses and categories, which implies it records review outcomes. However, 'bind' is vague, and it does not explicitly state that this tool creates or records a review, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings such as config_validate or report_read.

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?

It gives domain-specific usage rules: source must pass, not_applicable items must be explained in evidence, and unobserved behavior must not be marked passed. It does not, however, say when to use this tool versus alternatives like environment_inspect, config_validate, or report_read, so the 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.