complete_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially discharges it. It usefully discloses the blocking rule for unresolved relations, but says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens when the operation fails.

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 zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the blocking caveat follows immediately.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, so the description is the only behavioral source and it omits concurrency behavior, failure modes, and return information. It is under-specified for its complexity.

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% and the description explains neither parameter. The 'expected_revision' parameter is a concurrency token whose semantics matter a great deal and are left entirely unstated; only the form of 'id' is inferable from the pattern.

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 ('Mark ... as reviewed') and resource ('review item'), scoped to a single item. It is clear against 'review_queue' (listing) but doesn't explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like set_status or validate.

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 'Unresolved relations still block completion' implies a precondition for successful use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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