Add a product review

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description's statement 'This modifies the database' confirms the write behavior without adding new context. It does not disclose idempotency implications, error handling, or any side effects beyond the insertion itself.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence 'This modifies the database' is redundant with the already clear 'Insert' action. It could be trimmed to a single sentence without losing essential information.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to provide substantial context about required fields, constraints, or return behavior. It only gives a minimal 'Insert a new review row' statement, leaving the agent to infer the purpose and implications of each parameter and the result of the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what the parameters represent, but it only mentions 'a product' and ignores customer_id, rating, and comment. The schema itself defines these parameters, yet the description fails to add any explanatory value about their meaning or how they map to the review insertion.

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 action ('Insert') and the resource ('a new review row for a product'), making it easy for an agent to know exactly what the tool does. This distinctness is reinforced by the sibling tool 'search_reviews', which is read-oriented, whereas 'add_review' is explicitly an insertion.

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 implies when to use the tool (when adding a review) through the verb 'Insert', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on conditions like product existence or when to prefer 'search_reviews' for reading reviews.

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