updateReview

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior: 'Writes live data' and 'Fields omitted are untouched' (partial update). It also discloses the return format. No contradictions with annotations, and the extra details about enum semantics add transparency beyond the schema.

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 structured with bold labels (Use when, Required, Enums, See also, Returns), making it scannable. Every section serves a purpose: use cases, required ID, enum reference, sibling tools, and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: when to use, what the partial-update behavior is, what the review_status enums mean (including the undocumented value 1 caveat), and what the response will look like. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete operational picture.

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 low (15%), so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains review_status enums and notes required review_id, but the rating fields, recommend, and text fields are only implicit from the 'typos' use case. The partial-update note ('Fields omitted are untouched') provides general parameter behavior, but individual field meanings are not fully elaborated.

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 'Update an existing review record by ID' — a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning createReview and deleteReview in 'See also', and the top line 'Update a review' makes the action unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when: moderating - change review_status... Also used for admin corrections of typos in review text.' It also provides alternatives via 'See also: createReview (add new), deleteReview (remove permanently)', giving clear when-to-use vs alternatives.

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