scf_review_window_assessment_verdict

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

Annotations already cover read/write and destructive nature (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds behavioral context: 'One decision per version' and the 422 error when overriding without objectives. It also implies a write operation with 'write — editor role', which is consistent. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential conditional constraints without fluff. Every phrase adds value: the role, the required conditions, and the error case.

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 description covers the decision logic, the error condition, and the role requirement. The schema provides details on obtaining org_id and assessment_id, and the conditional parameter requirements. No output schema exists, so return format isn't specified, but the tool is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the conditional requirement for reason and ao_overrides when decision is 'overridden', and notes the 422 condition. It does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, but it does help clarify the interplay between decision and ao_overrides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Confirm or override' and the resource 'a window's current AI verdict'. It also specifies the role ('write — editor role'), making the intent unambiguous. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from review tools that only read or review evidence.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use 'overridden' vs 'confirmed' — 'overridden needs a reason and ≥1 objective re-designation' — and the 422 error condition 'without objectives: confirm'. This effectively tells the agent how to decide. It does not name alternative tools, but the context of write vs read is implied.

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