aiworkhub_manager_review_finding_dispose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses that the receipt is append-only, server-side bound to the verified reviewer receipt and candidate digest, never edits the reviewer report, and never accepts the target. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the name; the remaining gap is auth/permission and error semantics.

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 write nature and the core constraint are front-loaded, and each sentence adds information. Slight density but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details needn't be described, and the behavioral story is strong. However, for a 5-required-param mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the missing parameter and permission detail leaves the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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% across 7 params, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains the disposition enum semantics and the counter_evidence conditional requirement (value the schema doesn't carry). Four params (task_id, request_id, reviewer_request_id, reason) remain wholly undocumented in both places.

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?

A specific verb and resource — 'record one audited disposition of one reviewer finding' — immediately tells the agent this is the write path for reviewer findings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like aiworkhub_manager_review_hold_resolve or aiworkhub_task_reject_review, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete condition — 'dismissed' needs non-empty counter_evidence and can only lift LOW/MEDIUM findings, while high/critical cannot be disposed — which is real usage guidance. But it never states when an agent should reach for this tool instead of the hold-resolve or review-reject siblings, so selection guidance is only implied.

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