agora_review_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only a single negative fact ('do not grant local machine permissions') that is oddly specific. It does not state whether a review is persistent, affects module status or reputation, or is reversible.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The terseness is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, but structurally it is clean.

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-style review tool with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an output schema, the description leaves key gaps: what a verdict is, what the review changes, and who may call it. An output schema covers returns, but the call contract is still incomplete.

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 for version_id, verdict, and comment. It only obliquely gestures at 'ModuleVersion' and gives no hint about valid verdict values or what comment is for, leaving all three 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?

States a specific verb (Review) and resource (a ModuleVersion), which distinguishes it from the similarly-named sibling agora_review_artifact. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'review' actually accomplishes or how it differs in effect from other module tools like agora_publish_module.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no naming of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the caller not be the author, must the module be published first). The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

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