ingest_review

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: validates, returns issues, is report-only, and does not auto-regenerate. It also describes the return structure. However, it does not clarify whether the review is stored permanently or any side effects beyond reporting.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by args and returns. Each sentence is informative, but the first two sentences could be combined for slight conciseness. Overall efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage order, behavioral constraints, parameter meanings, and return fields. It could discuss error handling or more detail on review_json content, but it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief descriptions: project_id (required), slide_index (1-based), review_json (generated by client). This adds meaning beyond names but lacks detail on expected format or constraints for review_json.

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 verb and resource: 'Ingests a slide's review result: validate, return issues (report-only).' It distinguishes itself from siblings like prepare_review (which must be called first) and ingest_slide_edit (which applies edits), and provides context about its report-only nature.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Call AFTER prepare_review.' It also states what it does not do ('Does NOT auto-regenerate') and provides alternative action when has_high_severity: 'pass it into prepare_slide_edit(action="update")'.

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