mdl_reviews_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: host-configured MyDramaList authentication is required, and the operation mutates remote data and should only run on explicit user request. It stops short of describing partial-update or failure 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?

'Reviews: edit.' is a bare label, and 'fields is an upstream patch object' is restated later as 'fields is a JSON object of upstream parameters', which is duplication. The auth and caution sentences do earn their place, but the parameter discussion is padded.

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 non-idempotent external mutation, the description covers auth, mutating nature, and the fields shape, and no output schema is needed. It omits what a patch does to unmentioned fields, error behavior, and any description of review_id, leaving modest gaps for a write operation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does clarify that 'fields' is an upstream patch object and that rating edits use a nested ratings object, which is useful. But it never explains 'review_id', and the two fields statements are largely redundant ('upstream patch object' vs 'JSON object of upstream parameters').

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reviews: edit'), and 'edit' implicitly separates it from siblings like mdl_reviews_submit, mdl_reviews_delete, and mdl_reviews_get. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the mutation intent is unmistakable.

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?

It gives a real constraint ('use only for an explicit user request'), which is useful context. However, it never routes the agent between alternatives such as mdl_reviews_submit for creation or mdl_reviews_delete, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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