review_study_record

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: no substitution of model confidence for user opinion, the dependency of approved_clean_copies on sha256 values from read_study_record, default empty confirmations, resubmission requirements after changes, and a caveat that user_note is relayed by the host agent rather than independently authenticated. It does not cover permissions, concurrency, or what data may be overwritten, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 dense but purposeful paragraph that front-loads the core rule about transcribing user opinions. Every sentence carries operational guidance, though it could be more scannable with explicit structure for the approval rules.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description supplies rich workflow, dependency, and resubmission constraints. It still omits explanation of expected_revision (likely concurrency control) and record_id, so it is not fully complete.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains decision values (include/exclude/uncertain) implicitly, approves exercise indices starting from 0, the approved_clean_copies mapping format, and user_note purpose, but leaves record_id and expected_revision without added meaning, resulting in only partial compensation.

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 (study_record), and the core rule of transcribing user's explicit include/exclude/uncertain opinions. It references read_study_record as the source of sha256, helping distinguish it from that reader, but does not explicitly contrast with save_study_record or review_practice_attempt, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Provides clear conditional guidance for when to populate approved_exercise_indices and approved_clean_copies, notes both default to empty, and requires resubmission after modification or re-review. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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