Hand review back

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

Annotations only declare the generic non-read-only, non-destructive profile; the description adds the concrete state machine (turn=reviewer, state=done vs state=blocked), the resulting banner copy the human sees, and a hard availability limit on latex reviews. This is meaningful effect-level context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries new information (state meaning, workflow ordering, exclusion). The first sentence is dense with two parenthetical banner variants, which slightly slows parsing but is not padding.

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 tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers workflow position, state effects, error/precondition (latex reviews), and follow-up behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the tool returns on success.

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 is 3, but the description adds outcome semantics: it explains what each state produces in the reviewer's banner and that `message` surfaces there, going beyond the schema's terser phrasing. It does not add format constraints on `message` length beyond the schema's 'one-line'.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Hand the turn back to the reviewer') and immediately defines the mechanism ('Sets turn=reviewer on the review'), which distinguishes it from siblings like update_source, reply_to_comment, and resolve_comment that also touch a review.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing ('Use it after update_source and the replies or resolves on the comments you addressed'), an alternative branch for blocked cases paired with a comment reply, and an explicit exclusion ('Reopening a comment is a reviewer action... Not available on a kind=latex review').

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