post_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation and advises intentional use, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing labels, the permanence of the action, or permission requirements, leaving gaps in what an agent should expect.

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 three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and no redundant words. Each sentence adds meaning: what it does, concrete use cases, and a caution. It is efficiently sized 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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameter usage, but given there is no output schema, it does not mention what the response contains or how to interpret success/failure. It also omits any prerequisites beyond the required change_id, which is present in the schema. Overall, it is adequate for selection but not fully complete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds value by giving examples (e.g., 'Code-Review: +1') and clarifying what 'ready' and 'work-in-progress' mean in the context. This goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions and aids correct invocation.

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 states the specific action: 'Post a review on a Gerrit change,' and enumerates concrete uses (voting on labels, cover message, marking ready/WIP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_review_comment, which is focused on comments only, and from other mutations like abandon_change.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (vote on labels, leave a message, mark as ready/WIP). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the use cases imply the tool is for overall review posting rather than just comments. The mutation warning also clarifies intentional use, though it could name sibling tools like post_review_comment for exclusion.

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