review_request

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), and the description adds one meaningful behavioral fact: the repository-diff fallback requires the subject session workspace and never guesses process.cwd(). That is helpful, though it does not clarify side effects, whether a request can be duplicated, or what happens on failure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose first and puts the important fallback caveat second. There is no padding or repetition, and the caveat earns its place by warning about a likely error.

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 7 required parameters, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to safely select and invoke the tool. It explains one edge behavior but leaves the overall request semantics, expected effect, and parameter relationships mostly implicit.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not. The only parameter insight is implied: the subject session workspace relates to subjectProvider/subjectNativeId. The meanings of workId, objective, acceptanceCriteria, and reviewer fields are left entirely to the schema's bare names.

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 names a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('evidence-backed review request'), so an agent can tell this is about submitting a review request rather than reading or modifying state. It even adds a distinctive detail, the repository-diff fallback, but it never explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling review_create, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over review_create, work_verify, or other related sibling tools. The caveat about the repository-diff fallback requiring the subject session workspace is more of a precondition than a usage rule, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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