review_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that a 'ket node' is created and linked to the proposal; it says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, what happens on conflicting verdicts, or whether the label state changes.

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 with the confirm/refute action and its allowed values front-loaded before the side effect. 'ket node' is unexplained jargon but the overall size and ordering are efficient.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the meaning of most parameters, the return shape, and any workflow context. Too thin to call this tool correctly without experimentation.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate but only clarifies the verdict domain ('confirms' | 'refutes'). The other four parameters (agent, build, evidence, label_id) receive no meaning, format, or example beyond their bare titles.

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 (confirm/refute) and resource (label), and the parenthetical enumerates the verdict values. It is reasonably distinguishable from propose_label by implication, but never names that sibling, leaving the create-vs-review relationship to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'the proposal' hints at a two-step propose/review workflow with propose_label, but the description never states that this tool is the follow-up to propose_label or what precondition triggers it.

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