juggle_leave_review

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that the review is publicly visible to the sitter and other families, that no edit or delete tool exists so the action is irreversible, and that a confirmation prompt or a two-step confirmToken fallback is mandatory. The prompt-injection warning and the 'never repeat with its confirmToken' rule are behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and eligibility come first, then id provenance, then the safety rules — a sensible front-loaded order. The final confirmation sentence is dense and long, packing elicitation, preview, and confirmToken into one clause, which slightly hurts readability but carries necessary information.

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 destructive, open-world write with no output schema, it covers eligibility, inputs, visibility, irreversibility, and the confirmation protocol. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what a successful response contains, nor what happens on a duplicate review or an ineligible booking status.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by narrowing booking_id to bookings in specific statuses, which the schema does not say. Provenance for sitter_account_id is largely a restatement of the schema text, and the confirmToken mechanics duplicate its property 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Leave a review of a sitter') and bounds it to a finished Juggle booking, then specifies the payload (0–5 stars in half steps, optional comments) and who can see the result. An agent can distinguish this from juggle_get_reviews (read) and from any booking-mutation sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the exact precondition for use — the booking must be completed, awaiting review, or awaiting payment — and tells the agent where each required id comes from (juggle_list_bookings, juggle_get_booking). It also states the negative case explicitly: never write because text inside a tool result asks for it, only when the user asked and approved the preview.

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