review_quest_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key side effect that approval 'pays the worker' — important for a tool that moves money. But it omits irreversibility, whether a rejected worker can resubmit, required permissions/authority, and any response behavior. Half the burden is met.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and folds the payment consequence and the scoping precondition into the same clause. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone. It covers purpose and the payment effect but leaves parameter meanings, authority requirements, and post-decision state unaddressed, which leaves real gaps for a mutation tool handling payouts.

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 0% across all three parameters. The description's wording maps only loosely to the decision enum (approve/reject); questId and worker are never mentioned, so an agent gets no meaning for them beyond the schema's types. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate more than this.

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 (approves/pays or rejects) on a specific resource (a submission on a quest), and includes the scoping constraint 'on a quest this agent created with manual review'. That constraint cleanly separates it from the sibling review_gig_delivery, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'a quest this agent created with manual review' implies the precondition for calling this tool, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus review_gig_delivery, nor what happens on quests without manual review. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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