review_submissions__create

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: clarifies that the call does not send anything, opens an empty submission, and is a release-level write. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, though it could elaborate on potential side effects of creating the submission.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first phrase. Every sentence adds useful information: the step context, what it does not do, and the next actions. The endpoint is included without clutter.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: the tool's role in the three-step process, what it creates, and what to do next. It integrates well with the sibling tool names and schema requirements.

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 only describes the body generically as 'JSON:API request body.' The description adds meaning by explaining that this call creates an empty submission and that the version is not set here, which helps the agent understand that the body should contain only the app relationship.

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 tool creates a review submission but is only step 1 of 3 and does not actually submit anything. It explicitly says it 'opens an empty submission for an app,' which distinguishes it from the actual submission step and from sibling tools like review_submissions__update.

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?

Directly provides a step-by-step workflow: 'step 1 of 3,' followed by instructions to use review_submission_items__create and then set submitted. This gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool and what to do next, with a named alternative for the subsequent action.

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