submit_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('submit') but does not describe side effects, such as whether the review notifies the author, updates the change request status, or is reversible. No permission or rate-limit information is given.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words or repetition.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequately sized but lacks key contextual information like side effects and workflow context. The schema partially compensates with parameter descriptions, but the tool's role in the review lifecycle is only implied.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing the enum values in parentheses, which is redundant. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('review on a change request'), and enumerates the three possible statuses. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_reviews or post_comment.

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 usage in the review workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_comment or request_reviewers. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and sibling list.

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