suggest_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that a message is sent to the evipedia team via a public form, the success return format (plain-text confirmation), the failure format ('Suggestion failed: HTTP {status}'), and non-idempotency ('calling it twice files two separate suggestions'). These are exactly the side-effect traits an agent needs before invoking a write/submit 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?

Purpose and submission target are front-loaded, followed by usage constraints, required params, and return/error semantics in a tight sequence. Each sentence adds a distinct, necessary fact with no filler.

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 non-idempotent submit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, the gating precondition, the alternative to check first, required vs optional params, and both success and failure outcomes.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that only `intervention` is required, that goal/references/email are optional, and that optional values are forwarded verbatim to the team. That forwarding behavior is not expressed in the schema.

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?

It names a specific verb (suggest/propose) and resource (a new review/intervention not in the catalogue) and explicitly identifies the submission target. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_reviews, list_reviews, and get_review.

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?

It states the exact precondition ('use only when the user explicitly wants to propose a new review') and the exclusion implied by that. It also prescribes the alternative workflow: search first with search_reviews to confirm the catalogue doesn't cover it.

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