add_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses two important behaviors beyond the schema: abstract must be an exact quote and the tool rejects writes on match failure, and content is automatically prefixed with a 🌕 signature. This gives the agent useful expectations for side effects and validation.

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 short sentences contain purpose, constraints, side effects, and alternate-tool routing with no filler. The key behavioral constraints are front-loaded, and the sibling reference is a separate efficient sentence.

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 tool with four straightforward parameters and an output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral constraints and alternative routing. It does not spell out book_id and chapter_uid semantics, but their meaning is reasonably inferable from names and the chapter-focused context.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It meaningfully clarifies abstract and content, but book_id and chapter_uid are left entirely implicit. The context makes them inferable, but they are not explicitly described.

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 opens with the specific action '写想法' (write a thought) and clearly names the resource being acted on. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly directing chapter-level thoughts to add_chapter_review, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: chapter-level thoughts should use add_chapter_review instead. It also communicates the key condition for use—abstract must be a verbatim quote from the chapter—which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate.

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