Review Quote Paper Edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'local-only; no files, provider calls' and notes the inline output, but adds no auth, rate-limit, or retention detail beyond the schema's own note.

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 front-loaded sentences with the core action first and the scope constraint second; no filler. Slightly jargon-dense ('formula-neutralized CSV paper edit') but every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description needn't explain returns, and it still summarizes them. It omits the two-mode (approved vs unapproved preview) workflow and revision-gating nuance, but those are adequately captured in 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 100%, so segments, quote_order, and expected_review_revision are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., the revision-gating workflow or omit-for-preview behavior) beyond what the schema already states.

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 compound verb+resource: reviewing a transcript quote library, ordering approved quotes, and returning timings plus a CSV paper edit. It clearly distinguishes this from most timeline-editing siblings, though it never names an explicit alternative tool.

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 supplies a scope-based 'when-not' (local-only, no provider calls, no multi-source timeline assembly), which hints at boundaries. However, it never tells the agent when to prefer this over adjacent review tools like review_dialogue_candidates or preview_edit_plan, leaving usage to inference.

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