review_task

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the review-permission requirement and the no-self-review constraint, both of which are real behavioral limits an agent must respect. It stops short of saying whether the decision is terminal or what a reject with rework does.

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, front-loaded with the action and its allowed values, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter mutation tool, but every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 non-read-only gate tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers permissions and self-review but omits the semantics of 'note' and 'rework' and any routing relative to approve_task/reject_task. An agent still cannot confidently choose this tool or populate all its arguments from the description alone.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does not. It does supply the accepted values for 'decision' (accept|reject), which the schema lacks as an enum, but 'note' and especially the boolean 'rework' are left completely unexplained.

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 verb 'Decide' plus the parenthetical 'decision=accept|reject' makes the action understandable, but 'the review gate' is jargon and the description never clarifies that this is a task-review decision. It also fails to distinguish the tool from the direct siblings approve_task and reject_task, which appear to make the same kind of gate decision.

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?

'Requires review permission; no self-review' gives real preconditions for use, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over approve_task/reject_task, nor on when a review gate should be decided at all, leaving the alternative selection entirely to inference.

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