wirk_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and idempotent=true, so the description is not obligated to restate mutability. It adds genuinely non-schema behavior: the authorization failure mode (not_authorized) and the prohibition on background agents deciding, which an agent could not infer from structured fields. It leaves the stale-revision outcome and the effect of a rejection unspecified.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. 'At the revision you read' is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic, and 'A background agent never decides' reads as a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the decision-critical pieces: who is permitted, what happens if not, and revision pinning. The remaining gaps (stale-revision conflict behavior, request_id idempotency key semantics) are real but secondary.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it only partly does. It gives real semantic content for the decisions array (action verbs map to the enum, 'the revision you read' explains why revision is required and what pinning means), but reason, request_id, workspace_id and format are never mentioned.

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 set of verbs (accept, reject, defer) against a named resource (proposals) with a scoping constraint ('at the revision you read'). An agent knows exactly what operation this performs, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast against wirk_write or wirk_query.

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?

Explicitly defines eligibility ('Anyone whose role may review decides') and two exclusion cases: non-review roles receive not_authorized, and background agents never decide. That is concrete when/when-not guidance, but it stops short of routing the agent to a specific alternative for the excluded cases.

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