decide_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the consequential behavior: accept means the value is served from the next snapshot onward, reject means it is never served. It omits auth/permission requirements and any note about reversibility or rate limits, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely valuable for a mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the accept/reject consequences front-loaded and the `by` clarification appended. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the outcome semantics of accept/reject are well covered. However, for an unannotated mutation tool the definition should also establish prerequisites (is the observation required to be pending?), the meaning of `observation_id`, and the role of `note`, none of which appear.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `by` ('names who decided') and implicitly the two `decision` enum values, but leaves `observation_id` and the optional `note` completely undefined, covering only roughly half the surface.

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 gives a precise verb (accept/reject) and resource (a pending value under review), and clarifies the outcome of each branch. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling review_queue, but the semantics of the operation are 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'call after review_queue returns a pending observation'). The phrase 'pending value' only weakly implies the precondition, leaving the agent to infer when the tool is applicable.

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