qrtap_moderate_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the effect is immediate, publicly visible to everyone, made on behalf of the business owner, and requires prior user confirmation. It leaves out idempotency (calling hide on an already-hidden review) and error/permission behavior, which keeps it short of 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?

Two sentences, the effect stated first and the confirmation requirement second. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers what matters: the visible consequence, the stake (acts for the business owner), and the required confirmation. A note on repeat calls or failure modes would make it complete.

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% and the enum already documents publish vs hide, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantics ('immediately', 'visible to everyone') and says nothing about reviewId beyond what the schema states.

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: 'Publish or hide one guest review,' which immediately separates it from the read-only siblings like qrtap_list_reviews and the unrelated page/booking tools. The two possible effects are spelled out in the same sentence.

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 conditions for each action (publish = public immediately, hide = off the page) and an explicit procedural gate: show the review text and ask the user before calling. It does not name a sibling alternative for reversing a moderation decision, but for a binary-action tool the guidance is nearly complete.

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