derive_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it goes well beyond the schema by explaining that 'wrong_goal' is a routing error that moves the feature rather than dropping it, while 'not_wanted' is a project-level decision. It also communicates why rejection rationales are mandatory. Minor gap: it only discusses two of the five rejection reasons, leaving duplicate/unclear/superseded behavior implicit.

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 dense sentences with the core verb and resource front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, rejection semantics, and the rationale policy are all relevant and tightly written.

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?

The description gives enough for the main invocation path: agent knows what actions are available, what the two critical rejection meanings are, and why rationale is mandatory. The main gap is that duplicate/unclear/superseded are not described, but the schema enum supplies those values and the tool's most dangerous ambiguity is already resolved.

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?

The description adds genuine semantic value to the central 'decisions' parameter: it explains what 'accepted' effectively does, what rejection means in each key case, and why 'rationale' is required. It does not document cwd/actor, but those are largely self-expianatory from schema/names, and the core parameter is substantially clarified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Review backlogged features' with concrete outcome categories: promote to 'agreed', reassign, or drop. The operation is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like feature_update, so some inference is still required.

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 intended use is implied by 'Review backlogged features', which is enough to suggest when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing guidance. An agent cannot easily rule out overlaps with feature_update or feature_reassign from the description alone.

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