submit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the state transition to in_review, that the runId becomes invalid after submission, the exact 40-character SHA requirement, and that 'met' requires recorded evidence. It does not cover error behavior, retry/idempotency, or authorization requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and required payload, then the state-change consequences. Dense but every clause carries unique information with no filler.

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 nine-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description nails the core submission contract and lifecycle effects but omits several optional parameters and says nothing about failure modes or what the caller receives back. Adequate, not 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 nine parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains commitSha, summary, criteriaResults, criterionId (sourced from get_task), status values, evidence semantics, and runId invalidation, but leaves branch, worktree, actorLabel, and completedWork entirely undefined.

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 and resource ('Submit a running task for review') plus the essential payload contract, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools such as start_review, approve_review, and request_changes. An agent can distinguish the action without opening another schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('running task') and an explicit dependency on get_task for criterion ids, which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use request_changes or start_review instead) or stating failure conditions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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