submit_review

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool saves history, schedules the next review, and updates mastery, which are key behavioral outcomes. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required preconditions, or details on how 'conservative' mastery updates are performed.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with action verbs, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary length.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks parameter guidance, edge-case handling, and integration context with the scheduling algorithm.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description provides high-level context but does not explain the meaning or format of individual parameters like score, review_type, error_type, or response_time_ms. Agents must infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses specific verbs 'Save,' 'schedule,' and 'update' with clear resources (review history, next review, mastery). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like record_mistake (which likely only logs mistakes) and get_due_reviews (which fetches due items).

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 usage when completing a review, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_mistake or upsert_item. No exclusions or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the choice to the agent's interpretation.

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