vtex_approve_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Approve a review for display' implies a mutation operation that changes review visibility, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'approve' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of a review approval operation in an e-commerce context, more context about permissions, state changes, and typical usage would be needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'reviewId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 ('approve') and resource ('review'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vtex_update_review' by focusing specifically on approval rather than general updates. However, it doesn't specify what 'approve' entails beyond 'for display,' leaving some ambiguity about the exact effect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vtex_update_review' or other review-related operations. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., review must be in a pending state), exclusions, or typical workflow context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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