Reconcile an uncertain write

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: specific state transitions (verified presence→done, verified absence→failed), explicit error/passthrough semantics (errors, missing fields, conflicting records leave review unchanged), and a prerequisite and an exclusion. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a write-adjacent tool.

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 compact and front-loads the read/state-transition behavior, with each sentence carrying content. But the extreme terseness and domain-internal vocabulary trade away readability, so it is efficient without being clear.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description must compensate. It does so well on behavior, state outcomes and prerequisites, but leaves the two parameters unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose inputs are non-obvious identifiers.

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 carries the full burden for the two required parameters (runId, key), yet it never explains what either identifier means or how to obtain it. Only 'one original review item' loosely gestures at 'key'. This leaves the caller guessing at argument semantics.

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 gives a specific verb (Reads) and a resource ('direct run frozen ensure lookup for one original review item'), and the title clarifies the intent as reconciling an uncertain write. However, the heavily idiosyncratic jargon ('frozen ensure lookup') makes the core purpose hard for an agent to parse without domain knowledge. It does name the adjacent tool (run_resume) and what it does not do, which helps distinguish it.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: it says errors leave review unchanged and points forward to run_resume, and it notes a prerequisite ('ensure saved before the run') and an unsupported case ('host runs are unsupported'). There is no direct when-to-use-this-vs-run_resolve/run_adopt guidance, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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