create_review_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that gate mode blocks until human approval and that polling get_task_status is required. It also states the return fields. However, it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, data persistence, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the human never reviews). These gaps reduce transparency.

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 three sentences: first states the primary purpose, second explains the two modes and their usage, third lists return values. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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 (13 parameters, conditional logic for modules) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on conditional parameter usage (e.g., when 'choices' is required), possible return status values, callback behavior, and error scenarios. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic value by explaining the modes and the relationship between 'claim' and 'content' for grounding, but most parameter meanings are already fully covered in the schema descriptions. No significant additional insight is provided beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Send content to LoopQuest for a human to review.' It distinguishes two modes (gate and monitor) and specifies the return values (task id, status, expiry), making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 explains when to use each mode: gate for blocking until human approval (with polling via get_task_status), and monitor for background review. It implicitly guides the agent away from using this tool if polling is not intended, and the sibling tool get_task_status is mentioned in context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or discuss alternatives for other review flows.

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