start_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: the claim is atomic, the reviewRunId must be persisted, the exact commit of the latest submission is reviewed, and pass/fail gating rules (any not_met/unverifiable criterion or not_fixed/partially_fixed finding blocks a pass; severity does not override) are spelled out.

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 text is long but front-loaded with the action sequence (confirm phase, claim, save ID, review) and every clause is operational rather than filler. Density is high, though a single paragraph carrying both invocation steps and review policy makes the workflow rules slightly harder to scan.

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 workflow-gating tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation order, review substance, and conclusion steps well. It stops short of stating what else the claim returns besides reviewRunId or what to do if no pending review exists, which an agent would need in a race or empty-queue case.

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 both parameters. It conveys that taskId comes from the developer's review request, but actorLabel is never mentioned and taskId's format or provenance is only implied, leaving one of two 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: atomically claim the latest pending review for a task and return a reviewRunId. It is clearly separable from siblings such as submit_for_review, approve_review, request_changes, and complete_review, which are named as downstream steps.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given (call get_task first and confirm phase=review) and the terminating alternatives are named (approve_review, request_changes, complete_review). It also says what not to treat as evidence (the submitter's criteriaResults), which is a concrete exclusion.

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