人工审核来源

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the authorization requirement and the manual confirmation step. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, as approve/reject implies 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and well-structured, containing only essential information without fluff.

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?

While it covers purpose and some preconditions, it lacks detail on post-action effects, return value, or the meaning of the 'confirmation' parameter, leaving some gaps for a tool with six required parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions by naming several parameters (reviewer, reason, expected_revision), but leaves others (source_id, decision, confirmation) unexplained or only implicitly covered.

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 function ('approve or reject a discovered source'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like collect or submit.

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?

It provides clear usage context by mentioning manual confirmation, required reviewer, and the fact that it's disabled by default, requiring operator authorization. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with other tools.

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