update_reviewUpdate your review of a lounge — change the rating and/or the text. Identify the review by lounge_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | No | New rating, 1-5 | |
| content | No | New review text (minimum 10 characters) | |
| lounge_slug | Yes | Lounge slug of the review to update |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read, destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds that only rating and/or text can be changed and that the review is identified by lounge_slug. It also scopes the operation to 'your review', which is useful context beyond the annotations.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence that explains the action, the mutable fields, and the identifier. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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 three-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is adequately complete. It could mention what happens if the review doesn't exist or if neither rating nor content is supplied, but these are minor 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description reinforces that lounge_slug identifies the review but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
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 the verb 'update', the resource ('your lounge review'), and the specific actions ('change the rating and/or the text'). It also clarifies the identifying field ('lounge_slug'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_review and delete_review.
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 context: this tool updates an existing review and identifies it by lounge_slug. It does not explicitly say when to use it instead of write_review or delete_review, but the wording makes the intended use case obvious enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the wishlist/visit/review lifecycles are clearly separated. However, get_my_passport, get_my_profile, and get_my_visits overlap somewhat in stats and visit history, which could cause minor confusion.
All tool names use snake_case and a verb-first structure, which is fairly consistent. The main deviation is mixing get_, list_, search_, find_, and discover_ for read operations, plus discover_more_flight_tools sits outside the domain naming pattern.
21 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a server covering lounge discovery, wishlists, visits, reviews, and user profiles. Each tool has a clear place and there is no obvious bloat.
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage for wishlists, visits, and reviews, plus rich lounge discovery by airport, network, access method, and search. A minor gap is that lounge details only show review counts, not the actual reviews from other users.