veto_pr_post

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/open-world profile, and the description adds meaningful context: the external GitHub dependency, the auth requirement (GITHUB_TOKEN), the consolidation into a single review, and the return value (review URL). It doesn't cover permission scope or rate limits, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core action and input provenance lead, followed by the prerequisite and return value.

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 write tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it writes, where the data comes from, the auth prerequisite, and the return value. No gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents pr_url, findings, body, and event. The description only adds that findings originate from veto_pr_review/veto_diff_review, which is provenance rather than parameter syntax. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (posts) and resource (GitHub PR review) and explicitly identifies its inputs as the outputs of veto_pr_review or veto_diff_review, distinguishing it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the workflow context (consumes findings from the two review tools and consolidates them into one PR review) and notes the GITHUB_TOKEN prerequisite. It stops short of explicit when-not-use guidance or naming alternative publishing paths.

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