fabricsReviewFabricCandidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Comment on' suggests adding data), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if comments are editable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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 concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and basic usage. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more informative about context rather than just repeating argument passing.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'commenting' entails in this system, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits with the candidate lifecycle (e.g., vs. commit/revert). Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 all three parameters (fabricId, name, comments). The description mentions 'resource ID and the fields to update' but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of fabricId, purpose of name beyond being required). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Comment on a specific candidate configuration' which provides a clear verb ('Comment on') and resource ('candidate configuration'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'comment' entails (e.g., adding review comments). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like fabricsCommitFabricCandidate or fabricsRevertFabricCandidate, which also operate on candidates.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments' but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over other candidate-related tools like commit or revert.

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