architect_language_review

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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it records findings, can send complete context externally via Jev in live mode, and explicitly has no approval authority. It still leaves the effect of force and the persistence/return behavior unstated.

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 three compact sentences with no wasted text, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the mode details and authority boundary.

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 purpose, mode behavior, and authority limits are covered adequately for a recording tool with annotations. Yet the missing force semantics and lack of explicit sibling routing leave an agent with gaps before invoking it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains live mode well and hints that change_id is revision-bound, but force and change_id are not defined, and workspace meaning comes only from the 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it records revision-bound, per-rule language findings. The added note that it has no qualification or approval authority helps distinguish it from review/approval-like siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as language_repair or style_check.

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?

It explains the live=true versus live=false modes, which is useful usage context. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over sibling checks or repairs, so an agent must infer the routing.

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