openspec_add_review

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

No annotations exist; description carries full burden. Only states basic action with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or what happens after submission (e.g., notification, persistence).

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. Could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

With 8 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. Lacks information on return values, validation effects, or use cases.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; parameters are well-documented in schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action (add review comment) and resource (change or spec), but inaccurately omits 'proposal', 'design', and 'tasks' which are valid target types in the schema. It distinguishes from siblings like openspec_reply_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?

No usage guidelines provided. No indication of when to use this tool vs alternatives like openspec_reply_review or openspec_resolve_review.

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