loopgrid.record_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states the tool is disabled by default, requires operator configuration of reviewer identity, and should be gated by human confirmation from the MCP host. This is meaningful auth/confirmation context beyond a naive read of the schema, though it doesn't detail what happens to the decision or whether the review is immutable.

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 compact sentences front-load purpose and then deliver the key operational caveat. No filler or restatement of schema fields; each clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and prerequisites well but leaves out parameter roles and relationship to sibling record_* tools. It is adequate as an overview yet incomplete for reliable invocation.

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. It only mirrors the action enum in prose ("approve/reject") and never explains decision_id or reason. An agent gets no added meaning for two of the three parameters, leaving a clear gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Record a human approve/reject review in LoopGrid." It identifies this tool as recording human review decisions, which is clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling record_decision/record_action/record_outcome tools, but the "review" scope is distinguishable enough to avoid deep confusion.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies — when a human approve/reject review needs to be recorded — and adds operational prerequisites: disabled by default and requires operator enablement/configuration. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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