add_game_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires login'), a hard content constraint (800+ chars to publish), a non-destructive guarantee ('Never clicks DELETE'), and update-in-place behavior for existing reviews. It omits reversibility/error handling and rate behavior, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the most actionable facts (body required, publish rule, login) lead. Slightly telegraphic but nothing wasted.

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?

The output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the safety/auth/limit context is solid. However, for a 10-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too many parameters and their effects opaque, so it is only minimally 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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It clarifies only body (required) and publish (draft semantics) and implies slug via the URL template, leaving feed, title, mature, wait_ms, language, platform, and spoilers entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb pair and resource ('Add or update a review') plus the concrete endpoint shape, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_game_review and set_game_rating without opening any 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?

Gives clear conditional guidance on the publish flag ('Publish needs 800+ characters; use publish=false for Save draft') and notes that an existing review opens the existing editor, but never names sibling alternatives or when to prefer them over this tool. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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