athena_review_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key effects: approval promotes to KB with elevated confidence, rejection marks with reason. This is adequate for a review action, though it lacks details on reversibility or required permissions.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the two outcomes and the meaning of the parameters. It does not mention any permissions or state prerequisites, but for a straightforward review tool, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—mainly connecting `candidateId` to `athena_list_candidates`. The note parameter is explained in the schema, not the main description.

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 clearly states the action ('Approve or reject') and the resource ('pending knowledge base update candidate'), with distinct outcomes for each decision. It distinguishes from sibling `athena_list_candidates` which only lists candidates, not reviews them.

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 implies use when a candidate needs a decision, and the parameter description links `candidateId` to `athena_list_candidates`, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare against other siblings.

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