review_spec_chunk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does reveal key behaviors: 'approve' advances the state, 'revise' redrafts with feedback. It does not state prerequisites, side effects on surrounding data, or error conditions, which are clear gaps. It also implies feedback is needed for revision, but the schema marks it optional, adding some ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then clarifies the decision semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, but it omits details about prerequisites, what constitutes the 'current spec chunk', and what happens after approval or revision. It also does not address potential errors or edge cases like submitting 'revise' without feedback. Given no annotations, this is a minimum-viable level of completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It interprets the 'decision' parameter by naming two specific values ('approve' and 'revise') and explains their effects. It also clarifies that feedback is used during revision. It does not elaborate on project_id, but that parameter is self-explanatory from its title.

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 states a clear action ('Approve or revise') on a specific resource ('current spec chunk') and distinguishes the two modes with their effects. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like next_spec_chunk or approve_plan, but the resource and action are specific enough to differentiate from most tools.

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 the tool implicitly by describing the action and the effects of the decision parameter. It does not provide explicit exclusions or compare against sibling tools such as next_spec_chunk, which may also advance, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick. However, the two decision modes are clearly mapped to their outcomes.

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