kernel_marketplace_review

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates that a review is added with a 1-5 rating. It says nothing about permission/auth requirements, duplicate-review behavior, moderation or immediate visibility, reversibility/deletion of the review, or what the call returns on success or failure.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification as much as economy.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits auth/permission needs, duplicate handling, whether the rating must be an integer, and any indication of the response. The complete parameter documentation helps, but behavioral context is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents item_id, rating (1-5), title, and body. The description's '(1-5 stars)' duplicates the rating constraint already present in the schema and adds no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Add a review for a marketplace item', which distinguishes it from sibling read/install tools such as kernel_marketplace_get or kernel_marketplace_install. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with other review-related or item-mutating siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., whether the item must be installed or owned first, whether one review per item is permitted, or what to do if a review already exists). An agent must infer all invocation conditions from the prose alone.

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