cell_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that materiality and deal consequence are human-only columns, and that verified or locked cells are not overwritten by later runs. It also implies this is for human input. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is idempotent, any side effects, or error conditions. Still, the disclosure is useful, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise—two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and adds the key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place. This is excellent conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 required) and that an output schema exists, the description covers core behavioral aspects (human-only fields, overwrite protection) but omits usage guidance such as when to use this tool, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. It also doesn't mention how the tool relates to run_table or cell_evidence. For a complete picture, more context would help, but the essentials are present.

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 description coverage is 75%, meaning most parameters already have descriptions. The tool description itself doesn't add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema. It references some concepts (verification, correction) but those are already covered. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't go beyond that.

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 states a specific action ('Record a human's judgment') on a specific resource ('a cell'), and enumerates the types of judgment (verification, correction, materiality, consequence). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like cell_evidence, which likely deals with evidence rather than judgment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any specific sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The only context is that it records human judgment, but no exclusions or alternatives are given. This is a clear gap.

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