review_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool records, requests review, never approves, and never wakes Codex. This gives an agent meaningful expectations about side effects and boundaries, though it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the most important qualifier 'UNVERIFIED' and the resource 'completion report.' Every phrase earns its place, and the behavioral exclusion is stated in a compact, scannable way.

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 simple four-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action and key behavioral constraints. However, because parameter semantics are not explained and there are no annotations, an agent may not know the exact roles of dshSessionId and requestId. The description is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, and the description does not map any parameter names to their meanings. Terms like 'bound task' and 'completion report' indirectly hint at taskId and summary, but dshSessionId and requestId are left entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Record'), a specific resource ('unverified completion report for a bound task'), and the key distinction 'never approves or wakes Codex.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like workflow_review or review_pending. It avoids ambiguity about what 'complete' means in the tool name.

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 gives clear usage context: this is for recording an unverified completion and requesting review, not for approving or waking Codex. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the 'never approves' statement provides a strong exclusion that guides an agent away from misuse.

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