review_gig_delivery

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important side effects: approval triggers payment to the worker, and rejection opens a dispute routed to an arbiter. What is missing is authority context (who may call this), whether either branch is reversible, and any rate or state preconditions.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and both outcome branches front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 state-transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary effects but omits permission requirements, preconditions on gig status, and any indication of what the caller receives back or whether the dispute path can be undone.

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 compensate. It explains the purpose of 'reason' (needed to reject) and the two 'decision' enum values implicitly, but says nothing about 'gigId', and it never clarifies whether 'reason' is mandatory for rejection, optional for approval, or what the 4000-char limit means in practice.

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 specific verb pair (approves/rejects) applied to a specific resource (a delivered gig) and names the concrete consequence of each branch (pays the worker; opens a dispute for the arbiter). This is enough to distinguish it from the closely named sibling review_quest_submission without inspecting either 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?

Usage is implied by the branch semantics: an agent can infer 'approve' when work is acceptable and 'reject' when it is not. However, there is no explicit statement of when this tool applies versus review_quest_submission, no named alternatives, and no preconditions (e.g., gig must be in delivered state) spelled out.

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