Review Text Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: original text and evidence revisions are preserved, and approval/rejection is explicit rather than implicit. It does not disclose side effects of the revision token or what an unselected/pending entry means behaviorally, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation bar.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the state-preservation behavior and the scope exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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, return values need no explanation, and 100% schema coverage plus annotations carry the structural detail. The description covers the review workflow and its non-mutating nature; the only minor gap is that the two-phase flow (initial review, then select/reject against expected_review_revision) is left to 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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of approve/reject decisions and literal replacement loosely maps to selected_ids/rejected_ids and find_text/replace_text, but adds no format, pairing, or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb (preview/review) and resource (literal replacements or supplied copy changes for inspected MOGRT text and caption artifacts), and narrows scope with 'Does not translate, access native graphics/caption text or apply changes.' It never names a sibling tool directly, so the agent must infer the boundary with other review_* tools, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 negatives ('does not translate... or apply changes') plus 'explicit approve/reject decisions' make clear this is the preview/review step rather than an apply step, giving real when-not guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating the trigger condition for choosing it over a sibling, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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