Save a review draft

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the draft is account-wide, acts as a scratch buffer behind the site's review editor, and does not publish content. It implicitly conveys idempotent overwriting behavior through the 'scratch buffer' metaphor, although it does not explicitly state that an existing draft is overwritten.

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?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, scope, and alternative guidance. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with good annotations, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and alternative. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of a save operation, this is a minor omission.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'review' parameter (0% coverage), but the description identifies it as 'review text', which conveys the core meaning. It does not provide details on format, length limits, or overwrite semantics, but for a single string parameter with an obvious name, this is sufficient baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool saves review text as a draft without publishing, using specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling log_game by explicitly naming it as the publish alternative, and clarifies the draft's account-wide scope.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (saving a draft) vs. when to use an alternative ('Use log_game to actually publish a review against a game'). This is a clear exclusion and alternative naming.

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