submit_review

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects; it does clearly indicate this is a mutation that submits a rating and reschedules. However, it does not explain side effects such as whether the current due state is consumed, whether submissions are idempotent, or what prerequisites must hold.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and rating scale inline. There is no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's action.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. It omits when to call the tool, prerequisites such as obtaining a review item, the meaning of session/request IDs, and what a successful response contains.

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. It does document the rating scale well, but it leaves review_item_id's origin/format and the purposes of request_id and session_id entirely to their names, so the agent cannot confidently determine how to fill optional parameters.

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 names a specific action (submit an FSRS rating), the resource (review), and the accepted rating scale, which makes the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like submit_attempt or schedule_review, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_due_reviews, schedule_review, or recalculate_review_schedule. The review context is implied by the wording, but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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