moderate_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for an environment variable and the visibility change upon approval/rejection. However, it does not specify if the action is reversible, what happens to rejected reviews (e.g., hidden permanently), or any error conditions.

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 two sentences, direct and without unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the action, consequence, and a prerequisite, which is highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema. The description explains the primary effect (visibility) but does not describe the return value or any side effects (e.g., if a rejected review is still stored). For a moderate action, indicating whether the operation is synchronous or what response to expect would improve completeness.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema's explicit definition of the 'status' enum and the 'id' field. It reiterates the same mapping (approved=visible, rejected=hidden) already present in the schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Approve or reject' and the resource 'product review', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_reviews (listing) and delete_review (deletion). It also explains the consequence of approval on visibility.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires KARRITO_API_KEY environment variable') but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_review). However, the action is clear and the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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