review_submission_items__create

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

Annotations already signal a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds context beyond that by specifying 'RELEASE-level write', the 'open review submission' prerequisite, and the one-item-per-call constraint. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 tightly worded sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a single-item note and an endpoint reference. Every clause carries meaning; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complexity of the nested schema and lack of an output schema, the description covers the core action and constraint but omits explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the review submission is open and obtaining the submission ID) and expected response behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves some gaps for a complex create 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?

The schema's single required 'body' parameter is described as a JSON:API request body, providing baseline coverage. The description adds examples of acceptable item types (version, event, releasable item) but does not explain how to populate the nested relationships or required fields, which the schema already details via properties. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Put') and resource ('review submission item'), clearly indicating this creates an item within an existing review submission. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings like review_submission_items__delete and review_submission_items__update by operation type and from review_submissions__create by the item-level scope. The phrase 'One per call' adds an important behavioral clarification.

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 states when to use the tool: to add a version, event, or other releasable item to an open review submission, and to repeat the call per item. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The 'open review submission' constraint is a useful contextual cue.

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