ck_review_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states the tool is a 'write operation' that 'updates the review record and unblocks or halts the execution gate,' which is clear. However, it lacks detail on potential side effects (e.g., whether decisions are reversible) or failure modes (e.g., invalid review_id handling).

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 (5 sentences) and well-structured. It leads with the core action and then provides workflow context. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or result format, which it does not. While the workflow is well-covered, the lack of output details (e.g., what the tool returns on success/failure) leaves the agent somewhat in the dark. The sibling context suggests a rich ecosystem, but completeness is diminished by missing return info.

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 adds value beyond the schema by explaining that review_id comes from ck_review_submit, that decision must be 'approved' or 'denied' (matching the enum), and that annotations is a key-value object. Schema coverage is 80%, so the description compensates for the undocumented reviewed_by parameter, though it does not mention it explicitly.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Approve or deny a submitted review and attach feedback notes or structured annotations.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ck_review_submit (creates review) and ck_review_status (checks status) by specifying the action on an existing review.

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 workflow guidance: 'agents call ck_review_submit to create a review, then a human (or authorized agent) calls ck_review_feedback to record the decision. After approval, the submitting agent can proceed with execution; after denial, the plan should be revised and resubmitted.' This tells when and when not to use the tool, and references the sibling ck_review_submit.

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