waive_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence that git_root merge then takes the branch head without every seat's clean review, and notes that the waiver is recorded as a journal step. However, it does not clearly state permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loads the core action and effect. However, the final authorization sentence is grammatically broken and hard to parse, which weakens the structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should be fairly comprehensive. It conveys the critical effect on git_root merge and the commit requirement, but leaves authorization rules and the slug parameter only partially explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for commit by requiring it to name the branch head as it stands, and implies slug identifies the task's branch head. The meaning of slug is only inferable rather than explicitly defined, so the compensation is incomplete.

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: recording the waiver of the merge's review guard for a task's branch head. It also distinguishes the effect from git_root merge, which then takes the head without every seat's clean review. The purpose is clear despite the dense phrasing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with named siblings like check or result.

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?

Offers no clear when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The authorization sentence about the operator and a lead under review.afterResolver lead-decides is too garbled to serve as a usable condition or prerequisite.

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