Start a private Verbaterm review of pasted policy text (requires a Verbaterm API key; debits the caller's plan allowance, not API credits). Returns a sessionId to poll with get_private_review_progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policyKind | No | terms, privacy, cookies, data_processing, other, or auto. | |
| policyText | Yes | Full pasted policy text (min 80 chars). | |
| documentTitle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral traits: requires API key, consumes plan allowance, returns sessionId for polling. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on idempotency, error states, or side effects beyond allowance debit.
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?
Two concise sentences: first sentence states the action and key conditions, second sentence explains the return value. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with critical information.
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?
Explains the return value (sessionId) and the polling workflow, which is essential since there is no output schema. Covers billing implications and requirements. However, could benefit from mentioning minimum text length (already in schema) or error handling.
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 coverage is 67% (policyKind and policyText have descriptions, documentTitle does not). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for moderate coverage.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Start a private Verbaterm review of pasted policy text', specifying the verb (start) and resource (private review). Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it requires polling with get_private_review_progress and that it debits plan allowance.
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?
Explicitly notes prerequisites (Verbaterm API key) and billing impact (debits plan allowance, not credits). Implies usage context as the starting point for private reviews, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
