review_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key outbound side effect that a rejection sends automated feedback to the client, which is valuable context not in the schema. It omits irreversibility, required permissions, and whether the client-facing message is immediate or queued, all of which matter for a mutation with an external side effect.

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, action stated first and the consequential side effect second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with an outward-facing side effect, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the headline behavior but leaves gaps: no return value or result indication, no state preconditions, and no guidance on what the automated feedback contains or whether a rejectionNote is required when rejecting.

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 itemId, decision, and rejectionNote are already fully documented, and the enum on decision is explicit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 pair (approve/reject) and resource (a document uploaded by a client), which is clear at a glance. It doesn't note that the item is a checklist item (only the schema does) and no sibling tool overlaps, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description stays at a somewhat generic level.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to act on a client-uploaded document, and the note that rejection triggers automated feedback hints at when to prefer which decision. It never says the item must be in a pending-review state, whether approval is reversible, or when to use rejectionNote versus a plain rejection.

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