record_previs_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the record is caller-attested rather than verified identity, and that replacing an earlier review invalidates dependent approvals — a real side effect an agent must know. It does not cover failure behavior, idempotency, or what the call returns.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping rule, and each carries a distinct constraint (attestation, gate 7, ordering, invalidation, sibling role). Some phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic, but there is no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description supplies good policy context but leaves the largest ambiguity — the shape and required keys of 'answers' — plus return/error behavior undocumented. Adequate to understand intent, insufficient to call correctly without guessing.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It hints at revision_id ('rechecking the actual scene/playblast revision'), reviewer ('never invent a reviewer'), approval_quote ('exact human statement GREENLIGHT APROVADO') and gate_number ('Gate 7'), but says nothing about project_id, notes, or crucially the required nested 'answers' boolean map, whose keys an agent cannot infer.

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 and resource ('Persist a review') and adds a strong qualifier ('only after rechecking the actual scene/playblast revision'). It distinguishes itself from one sibling by noting that 'Original validate_gate remains an unrecorded checklist', though it does not contrast with validate_human_greenlight or get_previs_review_notes.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: earlier gates must be approved on this revision, Gate 7 requires a linked playblast plus the exact statement 'GREENLIGHT APROVADO', and only human statements actually received may be recorded. It stops short of naming the alternative tool for the unrecorded checklist case beyond pointing at validate_gate's role.

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