Review Reference Replica

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive write, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it saves a six-dimensional assessment, writes evidence into style_fidelity, validates design-version and hash membership, and forbids automatic re-planning/redraw after modifications. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or openWorldHint=false.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent paragraphs are ordered by prerequisite workflow, assessment requirements, validation, and user-acceptance rules. The density is justified by the tool's complexity and nested schema, with no filler sentences.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers the save operation, validation constraints, evidence requirements, and downstream workflow. For a complex nested mutation tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the six assessment dimensions, the evidence/correction requirement, and the design-version/hash validation that maps to task_id, design_id, revision, and image_sha256. It does not individually define every top-level parameter, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 names a specific verb and resource: saving the Host Agent's six-dimensional review after observing actual generated images. It explicitly distinguishes this from server-side image scoring and automatic regeneration, and references get_ecommerce_design and inspect_design_images as required siblings, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 an explicit workflow: first get_ecommerce_design for path/hash, then inspect_design_images to view images, then compare six named dimensions with specific evidence. It also states that revise/uncertain need correction actions, that the image must belong to the design version task with matching hash, and that agent_passed still requires user acceptance and re-plan/confirm/authorization after changes.

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