submit_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers the impact on worker tiers, rating guidelines, uniqueness constraint (one review per mission), and required mission status. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or whether updates are allowed, leaving some gaps.

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 with sections (main purpose, importance, rating guide, comment advice, args) and front-loaded. However, the rating guide is verbose and could be summarized more concisely without losing meaning.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes the return value. It covers key constraints (only one review, required mission status) and the rating scale in depth. It is complete for a submission tool, though it does not address permissions or error scenarios.

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 adds significant meaning: it explains that mission_uuid is for a completed mission, rating uses a 1-5 scale with detailed guidance, and comment is optional with a 2000-char limit. This adds substantial context beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states it is for rating a worker's performance after a completed mission, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_feedback', though the context implies a distinction.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool ('IMMEDIATELY after approving a mission'), emphasizes the importance of timeliness, and offers constructive comment advice. It lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is well defined.

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