Create Peer Review

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the operation may have destructive/external effects. However, the description adds no extra context about what gets destroyed, permissions, reversibility, or side effects. It merely restates the action without elaborating on the noted destructive behavior.

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, concise sentence that states the action directly. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 simple 4-parameter assignment tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks explicit guidance on edge cases (e.g., overwriting existing peer reviews), but the simplicity of the tool and rich annotations make it adequate.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the schema fully documents them. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Assign a user to peer-review a submission.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that list or delete peer reviews (list_peer_reviews, delete_peer_review).

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 context for when to use: when a user needs to be assigned as a reviewer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'assign' differentiates from list/delete siblings, and the context is unambiguous.

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