review_experience

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

With no annotations, the description discloses atomicity, revision checking, key-to-UUID response mapping, the fact that candidate creation is not observed successful use, legacy UUID-only validity, and retraction behavior for corrections. It still omits permissions, error behavior, and rate or effort constraints.

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?

Five compact sentences are front-loaded with the core action and key behavioral rules. Although jargon-dense, there is little wasted text.

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 high-complexity, nested mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains only a slice of the required input and output semantics. It says the response maps keys to UUIDs but does not cover required fields or enough revision and error behavior for safe invocation.

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% and the nested review object contains many undocumented fields such as experience_id, experience_revision, expected_review_revision, reviewer, rationale, links, feedback, and superseded_beliefs. The description only partially explains candidates and legacy UUID-only reviews, leaving most parameter meaning to the raw schema.

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 names the action ('Apply one atomic, revision-checked review') and its candidate-declaration scope, so an agent knows this submits a review rather than merely recording an experience. It does not explicitly say the review targets an experience record or name a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 sentence states when to choose this tool over siblings such as record_experience, record_support, or insert_belief. The compatibility note ('Existing UUID-only reviews remain valid') is not usage guidance; the reader must infer the use case from the name and schema.

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