refine_antenna_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions that it 'produces a hash-frozen review candidate,' which hints at immutability but nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether state is mutated. The term 'reconcile' is vague about the actual processing behavior.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and quickly communicates the core action and outcome, making it maximally concise.

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 is too brief to be operationally useful: it lacks when-to-use guidance, parameter details, and an explanation of 'hash-frozen'. The output schema covers return values, but the tool's role in the larger workflow and its side effects are not specified, particularly given the large number of sibling tools.

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%, and the description does not explicitly describe any of the three parameters. While 'raw visual evidence' and 'extracted text' loosely align with visual_audit_path and target_description, the mapping is not explicit, and job_id is completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('reconcile') and identifies a distinct resource ('raw visual evidence with extracted text') as well as a distinctive output ('hash-frozen review candidate'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_antenna_source and approve_antenna_source.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its 20+ siblings. No preconditions, workflow context, or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked.

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