veto_pr_post

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

Description adds the requirement for GITHUB_TOKEN and return of review URL, but annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-read-only; no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, idempotency) are provided.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines action, second adds prerequisite and output info. No wasted words.

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?

With 4 documented parameters and a return description, the tool is adequately specified. Could mention potential error conditions or duplicate behavior, but not strictly necessary.

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 covers all parameters, but the description adds value by linking findings to specific tools (veto_pr_review/veto_diff_review), clarifying their origin beyond schema descriptions.

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 it posts findings from veto_pr_review or veto_diff_review to a GitHub PR as review comments, which distinctively identifies its function among sibling tools.

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?

It implies usage after running specific review tools, providing clear context for invocation, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among siblings.

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