publish_review

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations: it never edits files or executes commands, clarifying the tool's side-effect boundary. The 'append' wording aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the idempotency key in the schema supports idempotentHint=true. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and key constraint are front-loaded, making it easy to scan while calling the tool.

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 tool with eight required parameters, nested objects, and zero schema description coverage, this description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It omits guidance on how to construct evidence, findings, idempotency, or verdict values, and does not explain the broader workflow context.

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 description only loosely refers to 'Git and test evidence' without explaining any of the eight required parameters, the nested evidence fields, idempotency, or verdict enum. It provides minimal semantic aid for an agent attempting to supply correct values.

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 clearly states the verb 'append', the resource 'review', and the binding to 'exact recorded Git and test evidence', distinguishing this review-writing tool from sibling publish_plan and read-only workspace tools. It is specific and actionable.

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 implies this is the tool to record a finalized review while explicitly saying it never edits files or executes commands, but it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer publish_review over publish_plan or other siblings. Exclusion is implied rather than explicit.

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