ingest_deck_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose that the tool does not edit ('without editing'), which is valuable, but says nothing about whether validation results are persisted, what happens on invalid input, idempotency, or required permissions for the project.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and ending with the important non-editing qualifier. No waste, though it is perhaps too terse for what it needs to convey.

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 covers return values, which helps, but with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation the description leaves critical gaps: the meaning of review_context, the expected structure of review_json, and how failures are surfaced are all unaddressed.

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 three required parameters. 'Deck review result' loosely maps to review_json, but project_id and especially review_context are entirely undefined in both schema and description – no format, expected content, or relationship between them.

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?

States a specific verb ('validates ... reports semantic issues') and a resource (deck review result), with the key qualifier 'without editing'. However, it does not distinguish this from the near-identical sibling ingest_review, nor from prepare_deck_review, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the pair to use.

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?

Only implicit guidance comes from 'without editing', which hints at a non-destructive validation step. There is no statement of when to call this versus prepare_deck_review, ingest_review, or finalize_* tools, and no prerequisites or sequencing.

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