mdl_reviews_submit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating, external nature is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond that: the host-configured authentication requirement and the warning that this changes data on MyDramaList. It does not mention that resubmitting creates duplicates (idempotentHint=false), which is a missed opportunity.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the key identifier, then auth and safety constraints. The only waste is the redundant 'Reviews: submit' lead-in that duplicates the tool name.

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 13-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves twelve parameters unexplained and never describes what a successful submission returns or whether the review must meet length/content rules. The auth and safety notes help, but an agent still cannot populate most fields confidently.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them, yet it only clarifies parent_id ('identifies the title'). The rating fields (story/acting/music/overall/rewatch), the spoiler/dropped/completed flags, lang_iso, and episodes_seen are left entirely undocumented anywhere.

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: 'Publishes a review on MyDramaList,' which clearly separates it from siblings like mdl_reviews_edit, mdl_reviews_delete, and mdl_reviews_vote. The leading fragment 'Reviews: submit' merely restates the tool name, but the following sentence does the real work.

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 an explicit gating condition: 'use only for an explicit user request,' which tells the agent not to invoke this autonomously. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (edit/delete) for modifying an existing review, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.

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