ck_review_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states this is a write operation that updates the review record and affects the execution gate. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the human-facing nature implies these are handled externally. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then details the write operation, parameters, and usage flow. Every sentence adds 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?

The description covers the tool's role in the workflow, parameter details, and usage guidelines. However, it does not mention the response format (e.g., success or error details), which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 significant value beyond the schema. It clarifies that review_id comes from ck_review_submit, decision must be 'approved' or 'denied' (resolving a schema description that mentions other values), and explains feedback_notes and annotations. This compensates for the 80% coverage and provides helpful context.

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's verb ('Approve or deny') and resource ('submitted review'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its role after ck_review_submit, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool: after ck_review_submit, by a human or authorized agent. It also explains the consequences of approval vs. denial, effectively telling the agent when not to use it (e.g., before submission) and what actions to take afterward.

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