review.save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses only that the tool persists data and returns an ID, but omits crucial details such as whether it overwrites existing reviews, validation side effects, error handling, or auth requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and outcome. No filler or redundant words, making it highly efficient.

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 the complexity of the input schema (nested objects, enums, 5 parameters) and the lack of an output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not mention required parameters, the return format beyond an ID, or any side effects, leaving a significant gap in context for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. The term 'review result (JSON)' is generic and does not clarify required fields like target and summary_ko, nor the meanings of risk, findings, or criteria_feedback.

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 identifies the action ('saves'), the resource ('review result'), and the output ('returns review_id'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like review.list, review.get, and review.export_markdown by emphasizing persistence and ID generation.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'save' implies persistence, but there is no mention of when to choose this over review.create or review.update, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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