Create a review entry by submitting findings, verdict, and evidence IDs, with independence checks to ensure the review comes from a separate, fresh context.
Record a review; caller submissions are agent_claim, never provider observations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workId | Yes | ||
| verdict | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| independence | Yes | ||
| reviewerSessionId | Yes | ||
| subjectEvidenceIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds meaningful context that the review is an 'agent_claim' and 'never provider observations', clarifying the intended data source. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps prevent misuse. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 a single, efficiently written sentence that fronts the primary purpose. No wasted words, and the additional behavioral note is succinct yet informative. It perfectly balances brevity with the necessary core message.
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?
With six required parameters, including nested objects, and no output schema, this tool demands more explanation. The description lacks details on how to construct 'independence', 'findings', or what the response will look like. An agent would struggle to correctly populate all fields. The description is far from sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the six required parameters. While some names like 'verdict' and 'findings' are self-explanatory, complex objects like 'independence' and arrays like 'subjectEvidenceIds' lack context. The description's mention of 'agent_claim' partially relates to data nature but does not clarify individual parameters. The burden is on the description to compensate, and it fails to do so.
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 uses the verb 'Record' with resource 'a review', which clearly states the tool's purpose. It adds a distinguishing note about the nature of the content (agent claim vs. provider observations) that helps set expectations beyond a generic 'create review'. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like review_request, so it falls short of the highest score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The only hint is the behavioral note, but that is about data semantics, not usage context. An agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool over a sibling like review_request or work_verify.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.