codelattice_change_review

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful scoping context ('pre/post edit review', 'single project root') but does not disclose behavior such as job lifecycle, pagination/output format, or what happens with mode-specific edge cases. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The front-loaded first sentence establishes core purpose and scope, and the second sentence delivers actionable routing guidance. Every clause 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 tool is complex: 10 parameters, 20 modes, and no output schema. The description covers workflow and mode selection well, but it does not explain return values or the behavior of job modes, leaving the agent to rely on schema descriptions alone. For a tool this flexible, a bit more guidance on outputs and job-mode expectations would be needed for full 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?

Schema coverage is 70%, and the description meaningfully enriches several parameters: it explains which mode to prefer for different scenarios and reinforces that the tool operates on a single root, not a workspace. It does not add detail for compact, direction, or language, but those are either defaulted or enum-covered, so the added guidance is net-positive.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Concrete pre/post edit review for a SINGLE project root when the target is known.' It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by stating that if the target is unclear, codelattice_workflow should be used first, so the agent understands this tool's niche without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit mode-selection guidance: use impact before editing, native_review after local diffs, breaking_change for public API concerns, and job modes for large repos. It also names the alternative tool and the condition that triggers it, making when-to-use unambiguous.

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