ck_review_feedback

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation that updates the review record and unblocks or halts the execution gate. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, which correctly indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 slightly long but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then providing parameter details and workflow context. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 (some nested) and an output schema, the description covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, workflow, and behavioral impact. It is comprehensive and does not leave gaps.

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 description explains each parameter's role and the relationship to ck_review_submit. However, the schema description for 'decision' mentions 'allow, warn, block, escalate' while the enum is 'approved/denied', creating a minor inconsistency that reduces clarity.

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 approves or denies a review, specifying the verb 'Approve or deny' and the resource 'submitted review'. It also distinguishes from siblings like ck_review_submit by noting it is called after submission.

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 explicit guidance: it is human-facing, agents should call ck_review_submit first, and after approval the agent proceeds, after denial the plan is revised. It clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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