reviews_ai__draft_response

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states 'Returns data only — never posts' and 'you write the text,' clarifying that the tool does not automatically publish. It also mentions 'no separate API key needed,' an important authentication detail. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by safety and workflow notes. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It explains the full workflow: fetch a review, receive drafting instructions, review the draft, and post via a companion tool. It identifies the specific post tool (`customer_review_responses__create`) and clarifies safety, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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% with clear descriptions for both `review_id` and `tone`. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Fetch one customer review and return it with an instruction for you to draft a reply.' It also distinguishes itself from the posting tool by saying 'Returns data only — never posts' and references `customer_review_responses__create` for posting, making its purpose distinct.

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 explicit workflow guidance: draft a reply with this tool, then 'post it yourself with customer_review_responses__create if you approve it.' It also notes 'no separate API key needed,' which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for merely fetching a review (e.g., `customer_reviews__get`), though the intended use case is clear.

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