acc_create_review

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false; the description adds context that this tool only initiates the review and does not handle approve/reject decisions, which happen in the UI. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and gives behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's role in the workflow, points to monitoring via acc_get_review, and notes the UI for approvals. With an output schema present and full schema parameter coverage, this is adequately complete, though it could mention prerequisites like needing an existing workflow (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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., version_urns format). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs 'Start (initiate)' and identifies the resource as 'a document review on an existing approval workflow'. It also clarifies the action as 'submitting containers for the checking/approval transition' and distinguishes from siblings by directing monitoring to acc_get_review.

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 explicitly states that subsequent approve/reject decisions happen in the ACC UI and that monitoring is done via acc_get_review, which provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly list exclusion scenarios, but the guidance is strong.

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