ocr_review_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two decision outcomes and the optional corrected-field mechanism, but it does not state side effects, whether the review is final, or how corrected interacts with the action.

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 compact, front-loaded, and uses two sentences with no filler. The primary operation comes first, followed by the most important parameter detail.

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?

For a mutation-style tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits the relationship between action and corrected, expected return behavior, reviewer requirements, and what happens to the record after confirmation or rejection.

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 is the main source of parameter meaning. It explains corrected as a JSON string with the overridable fields and gives action semantics, but invoice_id, reviewer, and notes are left to inference from their names.

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 a specific action — confirm or reject — on a low-confidence record, and clarifies the meaning of success vs failure. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the resource and action are specific enough to infer its role.

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 phrase 'low-confidence record' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but there is no mention of alternatives, workflow ordering, or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than fully explained relative to sibling tools.

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