prepare_declaration_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful negative constraint (cannot issue or consume approval), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose what side effects occur, whether the operation is idempotent, what it returns, or what the 'prepare' step does internally to the review data.

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?

The description is extremely short (one clause), which is concise, but it may be under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There's no clear front-loaded benefit since there's very little content to begin with, and it reads more like a fragment than a structured tool description.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides almost no operational context. For a tool that 'prepares' review data with version expectations and an external action enum, the description should explain prerequisites, what happens to the declaration state, and how this relates to the mutation/revert siblings. The single sentence is far too thin for the tool's apparent 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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides zero information about the single 'request' parameter containing ref, action, and expected_version. The schema's $defs are detailed, but the description adds no semantic meaning about what these fields mean in practice or how they map to review preparation.

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 verb 'prepare' plus resource 'declaration_review' makes the action somewhat clear, but it's vague about what 'preparing review data' actually produces or accomplishes. It does distinguish itself from siblings by clarifying it cannot issue or consume approval, which helps differentiate it from approval-related tools among the siblings.

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 statement 'this cannot issue or consume approval' provides minimal context about what this tool does NOT do, which indirectly hints at its narrow scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions beyond approval, and no mention of how it fits with the sibling tools like validate_declaration_draft or read_normalized_evidence.

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