suggest_review

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool 'submits to evipedia's public suggestion form' and that it 'sends a message to the evipedia team,' making the external side effect clear. It does not mention confirmation behavior, idempotency, or failure modes, but for a simple suggestion-submission tool these are minor gaps.

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 sentences with no filler: it states the purpose, explains the mechanism (public form at evipedia.ai/suggest), and adds a usage condition. The key side-effect warning is front-loaded near the end of the third sentence, and every clause earns its place.

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 is simple: one required string parameter and three optional fields, all documented in the schema. The description provides the essential context for selecting it (new/uncovered intervention, user intent, team notification) and the submission mechanism. It does not explain expected confirmation or response behavior, but that is not critical for invoking a suggestion form.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds little beyond framing 'intervention' as the main proposal target, 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 clearly states the action: 'Suggest a new review' with a specific target (evipedia.ai) and defines its scope: 'propose an intervention the catalogue doesn't cover yet.' This immediately distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools like search_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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to propose a new review.' It also warns about the side effect of sending a message to the evipedia team. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for cases like searching or reading existing reviews, so the exclusion is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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