snipara_inbox_review_apply

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: atomicity, authorization requirement with human admin identity, audit recording, 'fails closed' behavior, and return of per-item outcomes and a receipt. No contradiction exists.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (authorization, atomicity, failure behavior, return values). No wasted words. Structure is clear and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning return values (per-item outcomes and receipt) and failure behavior (fails closed). It covers prerequisites, atomicity, and audit trails. Lacks detail on error scenarios or partial failure, but overall adequate for a destructive admin tool with rich schema and annotations.

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% with descriptive parameter definitions. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., review_plan_id, reason, actions). It reinforces overall context but does not enhance parameter understanding. 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?

The description clearly states the tool applies memory-candidate and decision-draft actions from a prior review plan. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like snipara_inbox_review_plan and snipara_inbox_review_queue by mentioning it must follow the plan and is the apply step. The use of 'atomic' and 'destructive ADMIN operation' further sharpens purpose.

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 provides clear prerequisites: must follow snipara_inbox_review_plan, requires explicit user authorization and a real human team-admin identity. It also notes it is not idempotent and fails closed if items changed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling set offers no other apply tool.

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