Record what happened after a review

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: local-only telemetry scope and a hard precondition (TELEMETRY_ENABLED=true). The 'append' wording is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It stops short of stating what happens on a duplicate or failed write.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the operational precondition parenthesized so it does not bury the main clause.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the env-var precondition is disclosed. However, for a 4-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the three optional booleans entirely undefined, which is a meaningful gap.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description explains only review_id's origin. The three booleans (accepted_review, review_was_useful, later_rework_required) get no meaning, defaulting, or interaction guidance, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Append an outcome record for a past review.' The append/mutation nature distinguishes it from the read-ish siblings review_decision and should_review, though the sibling relationship is only implied rather than named.

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?

Gives a concrete sourcing hint ('Use review_id from review_decision meta'), which tells the agent where to obtain the required argument, but says nothing about when to call this versus the sibling tools or when not to record an outcome.

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