code_workspace_run_review

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states it 'submit[s] a human review verdict'. It does not disclose what happens after submission, whether it triggers actions, if it can be undone, or any side effects.

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 sentence, no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and expected values, though it could benefit from a bit more structure.

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?

Given it is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not used, the description should clarify the run's required state, the effect of feedback, and the return value. It is too minimal for a complex operation.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by listing the expected verdict values (accept | reject | request_changes). However, workspace_id, run_id, and feedback are not explained beyond their property 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 states the verb 'Submit' and resource 'human review verdict for a run', and lists the three possible verdict values. It is clear and specific, but does not differentiate from siblings like 'code_workspace_run_review_apply'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be used before or after other review-related tools. No context about prerequisites or typical workflow.

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