review_decide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals that the tool modifies state (approve/reject) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or error conditions. The feedback rule is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentences covering the core purpose, verdict constraints, and feedback rule. No redundant information. Efficiently structured with the main action first.

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 provides the essential operation but lacks output details, prerequisites (e.g., task must be in review state), and error scenarios. For a simple tool with no output schema, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could cause incorrect usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'verdict' (lists allowed values) and 'feedback' (conditional requirement). However, 'task_id' is left unexplained, and no parameter has full semantic coverage. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 the action ('approve or reject') and the resource ('a review-ready task'), and includes explicit valid values for verdict. This differentiates it from sibling review tools like review_verdict at a glance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_verdict, review_merge, or review_conflicts. The agent must infer from the description that it is for final approval/rejection, but explicit context is missing.

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