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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it names the required authorization scope (connected identity and community:review), the 'own scoped' constraint, and retry semantics for request_id and payload.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then requirements and retry guidance. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

Given the nested review object, auth requirement, idempotency behavior, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral prerequisites and retry handling. However, it is incomplete on the payload fields an agent must populate, which is a notable gap for a complex write 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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only names basis, affiliation, and expected_revision. It omits any explanation of body, entry_id, request_id, rating, dimensions, path_id, path_revision, or source_urls, leaving the majority of the nested review payload undocumented.

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 (create/revise) and resource ('finding on an entry'), which is clear enough to distinguish from sibling write_comment and retract_review. The term 'finding' instead of 'review' is slightly ambiguous but the intent is still legible without opening the 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?

It gives clear context: required prerequisites (connected identity, community:review) and retry guidance. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like write_comment or suggest_correction, but the resource boundary is clear.

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