waypath_review

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the effects of each status (e.g., 'accepted promotes into truth-kernel so it becomes visible to waypath_recall', 'rejected discards permanently', 'superseded marks as replaced'). It also warns that this is a governance gate. However, it does not mention potential side effects like idempotency or whether the action is reversible, but the key consequences are covered.

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 single well-structured paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential details efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the prerequisites (call review_queue first), all status effects, and the source of candidateId. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each status beyond the enum values, recommending notes for certain statuses, and specifying the origin of candidateId. This enriches the schema information.

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 clearly states 'WRITE: decide the fate of a pending promotion candidate' and distinguishes its role from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'governance gate between waypath_promote and durable memory.' It uses specific verbs and resources, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Call waypath_review_queue first to list candidates and their ids' and 'do not accept without evidence.' It also explains when each status is appropriate, including terminal vs. non-terminal states, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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