record_host_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, but it doesn't explain side effects like whether it overwrites existing reviews, manifest existence requirements, idempotency, or any potential errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides useful context. It is efficiently written without unnecessary detail, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and a 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse to be fully self-contained. It explains the high-level purpose but omits critical context like prerequisites (e.g., the manifest must exist), behavior on duplicate reviews, and the shape of the output, despite the presence of an output schema. The tool is simple enough that the description might suffice for a basic agent, but it leaves several gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (manifest_id, passed, summary, reviewer, critical_issues). It does not clarify the meaning of 'passed', the content of 'summary', or how 'critical_issues' relates to the verdict, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a host-side visual review' into 'a persisted manifest'), and explicitly distinguishes the use case from siblings by focusing on host-model inspection. It also mentions 'review harness' which adds context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this when Copilot or another host model inspects the generated image directly and needs to write its verdict back into the review harness,' providing explicit conditions for use. However, it doesn't name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of fully covering the dimension.

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