mark_reviewed

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool modifies chunk state but does not describe consequences (e.g., whether the chunk becomes final, triggers workflows, or requires additional steps). No mention of permissions or reversibility.

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?

Description is concise with a clear first sentence and structured Args section. It omits unnecessary details and is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers input parameters adequately but does not mention what the tool returns or any side effects. Since output schema exists, missing return description is acceptable, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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%, but the description's docstring provides meaningful context: chunk_id is a UUID, verified_by specifies reviewer identity, new_confidence lists the three options, and review_notes are optional. This adds value beyond the schema's raw types.

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?

Description clearly states the tool promotes or rejects a chunk after review, providing a specific verb and resource. While it differentiates from siblings like get_review_queue and submit_chunk, it does not explicitly distinguish from submit_chunk which may also modify chunk state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_chunk or retry_on_error. The description lacks context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites for promoting versus rejecting.

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