work_record_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the review is bound to a handoff and exact source state, but discloses nothing about permissions/auth needs, mutability, idempotency, or what side effects recording produces. For a write-style 'record' operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the terseness shades into under-specification given the tool's complexity, so it is efficient but not adequately informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with 7 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke the tool correctly without inspecting the schema.

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% across 7 parameters (5 required), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only alludes to the handoff binding; key fields like verdict, findings, summary, reviewer_id, checks, and project receive no explanation of expected format or semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Record an agent review.' It also scopes the record to a handoff and 'exact source state.' However, it does not distinguish this from related siblings like work_reviews, work_handoff, or record_outcome, and the meaning of 'agent review' and 'exact source state' is left implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Siblings such as work_reviews, work_handoff, and record_outcome are not referenced, so the agent must infer when recording a review is appropriate versus reading reviews or recording other artifacts.

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