Doco Review Translation Unit

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool refuses direct machine-result overwrites and by prescribing re-reading the target version after a 409. This concurrency and review-policy behavior is not visible in the annotations or schema and meaningfully improves the agent's expectations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action, then appends the two most important constraints: no machine-result overwrite and 409 re-read behavior. There is no repetition of schema or annotation content and no wasted words.

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 review-state tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential action, the no-machine-overwrite policy, and the key conflict-handling instruction. The only notable gap is that it does not help an agent tell document_id and target_document_id apart, but the rest of the structured context is sufficient for invocation.

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 100%, so all six parameters are at least nominally documented. The description indirectly clarifies review_status by mapping 'current' to confirming the translation and 'ignored' to ignoring the unit, but it does not disambiguate document_id from target_document_id, which remain confusingly similar in the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'confirm current translation or ignore unit' on a specific target-language document. It also explicitly excludes direct machine-result overwrites, which distinguishes this review action from editing tools. This goes well beyond the title and makes the tool's role clear.

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 description gives clear context: the tool is used on a target-language document to record a review decision. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('does not accept direct overwrite by machine results') and a conflict protocol ('on 409, must re-read the target version'). It does not name sibling tools such as doco_patch_block or doco_translation_units, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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