Submit a user rating to MusicBrainz

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: OAuth requirement, idempotent nature (setting same rating again is safe), and the dry-run preview feature. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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?

Concise and well-structured. First sentence states purpose and OAuth requirement, second explains rating scale, third explains confirm behavior, last sentence attributes data source. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, write operation), the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and submission flow. Could mention return format or error handling, but the dry-run preview addresses safety concerns.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: rating scale mapping (0–100 to 1–5 stars) and explains that 0 removes the rating. This goes beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set YOUR rating for a MusicBrainz entity'. It specifies the verb, resource, and user scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'musicbrainz_submit_tags' which handle tags.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (OAuth with 'rating' scope) and explains the dry-run behavior: without confirm:true, it returns a preview with no network call; with confirm:true, it submits. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool safely.

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