enoch_review_status

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

The description confirms it's a write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, it adds no further behavioral context such as idempotency, side effects, or required permissions.

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 very short but underinformative. It does not earn its place because it adds negligible value beyond the tool name.

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 the complexity of the toolset and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot infer what the tool returns or how it integrates with other tools.

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 0%, yet the description fails to explain any parameters. The 'review_status' parameter likely expects specific values (e.g., 'approved','rejected'), but no guidance is provided.

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 'Update review status.' is very minimal and generic. It does not specify which review status or provide context to distinguish it from sibling tools like enoch_review_claim or enoch_review_next.

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?

No usage guidelines are given. There is no indication of when to use this tool over other review-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or alternatives mentioned.

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