review_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that acceptance requires a normalized watch entry even though watch_entry is not a required field in the schema, and it reveals that this tool is the exclusive route from candidate to watchlist. It does not cover behavior such as rejection effects, expectd_revision semantics, or idempotency, but what it states is material and non-obvious.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the key constraint follows immediately, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has six parameters including a complex nested watch_entry object, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits important operational details such as expected_revision semantics, reject side effects, what the response contains, and how to construct a normalized watch entry. It gives a starting point but is not complete enough for an agent to call reliably in all cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially explains watch_entry by tying it to acceptance and implicitly clarifies decision via accept/reject wording. However, it does not explain candidate_id, reviewed_by, note, expected_revision, or the structure and purpose of the nested watch_entry fields.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Explicitly accept or reject a candidate.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it is 'the only candidate-to-watchlist path,' so an agent can tell it apart from record_discovery_candidate or list_discovery_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 clear usage context: this is where a candidate decision is made. It also gives a key prerequisite: 'Acceptance requires a normalized watch entry.' It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but 'only candidate-to-watchlist path' strongly implies the appropriate selection among sibling tools.

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