Start, request fixes for, reject, or extend a bounty submission review using its current version; stale versions return a conflict. This does not authorize payment.
Start review, request changes, decline, or extend once. Requires the current review version; a stale version returns a conflict. This tool does not authorize payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| submission_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: a stale version produces a conflict (concurrency/optimistic-locking semantics), and the tool never triggers payment. It also implies the actions are one-shot/terminal for extension ("extend once"). It does not state permissions or reversibility, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action set, then the precondition, then the boundary constraint. No filler and every clause carries decision-relevant information.
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 destructive, multi-action mutation tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers version handling and payment scope but omits the meaning/requirements of 'reason', any hint about what a review-state change affects, and permission requirements. Adequate but with clear holes.
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 carries the burden. It explains the 'version' parameter's semantics well (must be current, stale returns conflict) and the enum values are self-describing, but 'reason' is never mentioned despite its 3-4000 char constraint, and the description doesn't say which actions require it.
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 enumerates the four concrete actions (start review, request changes/decline, extend) the tool performs, which nails the verb side, and the closing clause carves out a boundary against payment-authorizing siblings. The resource itself (bounty submission) is only implicit from the tool name rather than stated in the description, which slightly weakens the identification.
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 a real precondition ("Requires the current review version") and a usage exclusion ("does not authorize payment"), which steers an agent away from treating it as an approval tool. It stops short of naming accept_bounty_submission as the alternative for actually accepting/paying, so routing is clear but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.