save_review_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the operation both saves a comment and transitions status, outlines prerequisite conditions, and lists possible resulting statuses. It also specifies the return keys. This is sufficient transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not mention error handling or permissions.

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 and well-structured: a two-sentence main body followed by a returns line. It front-loads the core action and adds necessary details without any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 behavior, prerequisites, possible statuses, and return structure. Since an output schema exists, the return details are over-specified but still helpful. It does not address error scenarios or side effects beyond the status transition, but for a tool of this complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has no property descriptions, so the tool description must add context. It does so by clearly enumerating valid values for the 'status' parameter and implying the role of design_id through the reviewable-status prerequisite. The other parameters (comment, reviewer, design_id) are self-explanatory from their names, and the default for reviewer is clear from the schema.

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 purpose: to save a review comment and transition the design status. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like transition_design_status (which only changes status) and save_review_batch (which handles batch operations).

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when a design is in reviewable status (in_review or revision_requested). It also lists valid post-review statuses, giving guidance on expected use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where only a status change or batch saving is needed.

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