Neurons Review Submit

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (mutation, non-destructive, closed-world). The description usefully adds the side effect that the requester receives the result in their inbox, which the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about resubmission/idempotency, whether finishing closes the review permanently, or whether verdict=approve triggers downstream 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required payload, with no filler. It is, however, terse to the point of under-specification given a four-parameter schema with a nested array.

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?

A mutation tool with a rich nested findings schema, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description should explain the id, the findings structure, and what happens on submit, but it leaves an agent to reverse-engineer the payload from the raw schema.

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 carry the load. It names three of four parameters but adds no meaning: it never explains that id is the review identifier, what each verdict value implies for the requester, or how the nested findings objects (file/line/severity/title/detail/suggestion) should be populated.

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+resource ("Finish a claimed review") and enumerates the payload (verdict, summary, findings), which distinguishes it from review_request and review_get. It doesn't carve out the boundary against reply/send, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

"Claimed review" implies a prerequisite (the review must already be claimed, presumably via claims), but the description never says so explicitly or names the alternatives for unclaimed/other review operations. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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