createReview

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

Annotations already establish this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false). The description adds meaningful context: 'Writes live data,' explains the default review_status flow ('0 Pending -> admin review'), and warns about omitted rating fields defaulting to 5. It does not detail all side effects, hence not 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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, required fields, parameter interactions, and a cross-reference. Every sentence provides distinct value; no fluff or repetition. It is compact despite covering many critical details.

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 13-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description plus schema form a complete picture. It covers use cases, required fields, key parameter interactions, default behaviors, and sibling relationships. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a create operation.

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 62%, so the schema does substantial work. The description adds value by clarifying user_id ('the member being reviewed'), recommend ('0=No, 1=Yes'), and review_status semantics ('controls initial visibility'). It also highlights required parameters. This compensates for undocumented fields like review_title and review_description.

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 'Create a review - Create a new review record. Writes live data.', which clearly states the action (create) and resource (review record). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with updateReview ('See also: updateReview (modify existing)') and by clarifying that real member-submitted reviews go through the BD form, not this API.

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 'Use when:' section explicitly lists three appropriate scenarios (importing legacy reviews, placeholder/test data, external integration) and an exclusion: 'only use this API when bypassing that form.' It also points to updateReview for modifications. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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