suggest_intervention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a message to the evipedia team via a public form, which is a key side effect. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, requires authentication, or what the tool returns after submission. The disclosed context is helpful but incomplete for a side-effecting write tool.

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 effective: three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the submission form detail, and the third clarifies the intended usage restriction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the external endpoint, and usage restriction. However, it omits what happens after submission (e.g., success message, errors) and does not address whether the email is required for follow-up. These details would help an agent set expectations for the user.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the form ('the same one at evipedia.ai/suggest') but does not add meaning to the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for params (goal, email, references, intervention) are already clear.

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's purpose: 'Suggest a new intervention for evipedia.ai to review' and 'Submits to evipedia's public suggestion form'. It names the specific resource (evipedia.ai) and distinguishes itself from the sibling read-only tools (search_reviews, list_reviews, etc.) by being a submission/write action.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to propose a new intervention'. It implies not to use for other purposes, and the sibling tools cover reading/reviewing, making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use beyond the stated restriction.

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