review_propose

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly hint false, destructive false, idempotent false, non-open-world). The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the proposal is adjudicated by a human who 'accepts or discards it,' and the call returns the proposal's id. It does not mention auth requirements, but the workflow outcome is disclosed.

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 purpose and the kind taxonomy are front-loaded, and the sibling-routing sentence comes last where it is most useful. Slightly dense with em-dash asides, but every clause carries information and none is redundant.

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 5-param, non-destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the required kind/body semantics, the optional file/line scoping, and what the call returns ('answers the proposal's id'). The sessionId inheritance behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the `kind` enum by explaining what each value signifies (a question for the human, a follow-up after review, needs-context when the agent cannot judge). That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's short enum labels.

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 (propose a guided-review item) and enumerates the three allowed kinds, immediately delimiting it as 'not a finding on the code.' It explicitly names and defers to review_propose_comment for line-level findings, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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 when-to-use for each of the three kinds, including the decision rule 'prefer it to guessing' for needs-context, and routes line-specific findings to review_propose_comment. Both the selection condition and the alternative are stated explicitly.

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