Submit design recheck

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

Beyond the annotations, it adds that the tool never edits code, is metered, rejects unchanged/exhausted targets without running judgment, and explains provenance behavior when nothing judged the target. It also reinforces idempotency by telling the agent to reuse client_request_id on retries. This is meaningful behavioral detail with no contradiction.

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 dense but still readable, with four focused sentences. No sentence is wasted; each one adds either a behavioral guard, a retry hint, or a required precondition. It is slightly compressed but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 5 parameters, low schema coverage, and a nontrivial retry/recheck flow, the description leaves gaps around expected_revision semantics and how the provenance signal should be practically handled. The output schema helps, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for an agent to avoid stale or invalid recheck calls.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters like expected_revision, review_id, and client_request_id. It only hints at client_request_id reuse and does not explain what expected_revision is for or how review_id relates to a prior review.

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 names a specific verb and resource: submitting a metered recheck for findings from a completed review. It further distinguishes the tool by stating it is for use after the customer's agent changes the UI, which separates it from the sibling design_review and related review 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?

It clearly states when to call the tool: after a completed review and UI changes. It also gives exclusions by noting unchanged targets and exhausted recheck loops are rejected, which informs an agent not to use it in those cases. It does not fully name alternative siblings, but the context is clear enough without explicit alternates.

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