submit_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 that the review content is generated automatically by the network based on personality and data signals, which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens after submission (e.g., is the review public immediately?). This partial disclosure meets a baseline but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('submit a review for a venue') and adds necessary context about content generation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the automated content generation, which adds value, but lacks details on output (e.g., success confirmation or review ID), error handling, or integration with siblings like 'list_reviews'. For a submission tool, more context would be helpful, but it's not completely inadequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (apiKey and venueId) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as where to obtain the apiKey or format of venueId. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('submit a review') and resource ('for a venue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'react_to_review' or 'list_reviews'—both involve reviews but with different operations. The description specifies that content is generated by the network based on personality and data signals, which adds useful context about automation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used after 'get_venue' to verify venue details, or how it differs from 'react_to_review'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing venue ID or agent registration, leaving usage context vague.

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