write_reviewWrite a review for a lounge. Requires the lounge slug, a rating (1-5), and review text (min 10 characters).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | Yes | Rating from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) | |
| content | Yes | Review text (minimum 10 characters) | |
| lounge_slug | Yes | Lounge slug (from search results) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to add context about side effects. It does not clarify whether this tool creates a new review or fails if one already exists, nor does it mention any auth or permission requirements. The description only repeats field requirements, adding minimal behavioral insight beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and required inputs with no unnecessary words. Efficient and easy to parse.
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 write operation with 3 required parameters fully covered by the schema and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits a mention of the update_review sibling, which could confuse an agent about whether to call this for an existing review. This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.
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 all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the same fields (lounge slug, rating, content) without adding any new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance understanding.
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 the verb 'Write' and the resource 'review for a lounge', and lists the required fields (lounge slug, rating, review text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_review and delete_review without needing to inspect schemas.
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 prerequisites (lounge slug from search results) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of update_review for editing existing reviews or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the name alone.
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.