review_propose_route_change

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

Goes well past the annotations: nothing takes effect until the human accepts in Reado, the running route is unaffected, a newer proposal replaces a pending one, the call resolves as a confirmation, and it is refused when no reason is supplied. These are exactly the mutation/authority semantics an agent needs and annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds behavioral constraints in tight clauses that each carry information (replacement rule, non-blocking behavior, confirmation/refusal). Dense but not padded; only the em-dash example list borders on 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?

With no output schema, the description covers return behavior ('answers a confirmation'), the human-gated mutation model, and the sessionId fallback via the schema. For a 3-parameter, non-destructive proposal tool this is close to complete, though it never states what a rejection looks like.

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 the schema already documents route, reason, sessionId (including the omit-to-use-newest fallback). The description reinforces that a reason is mandatory ('refused without a reason'), but adds little on the route payload beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Propose) plus a specific resource (a new route for a guided review already under way) and enumerates the kinds of changes it covers: adding a found file, reordering, dropping a file. The 'already under way' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling review_propose for initial planning.

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 clear usage context — it applies to a review in progress, and the agent is told to keep working the current file rather than wait. It also notes that a new proposal supersedes a still-pending one. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (review_propose, review_plan) or stating when NOT to use it.

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