respond_to_review

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the publish operation, the one-response limit, and the need to delete first. However, it does not mention potential moderation, character limits, or visibility latency. Still, it adds significant context beyond a simple 'publish'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a key usage constraint. No extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the main usage context (publish, one-per-review, deletion prerequisite). Missing details like return value (success/error), permissions, or public visibility timeline. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% with descriptions already explaining each parameter. The description adds minimal additional meaning for the parameters: it clarifies that reviewId comes from list_reviews and responseBody is the text. This does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Publish' and the resource 'public developer response to a customer review'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'delete_review_response' and 'list_reviews' by explicitly mentioning the one-response-per-review constraint.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use only if no existing response, otherwise delete first using delete_review_response. Names the alternative tool and gives a clear procedural step.

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