vtex_update_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a review' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical traits such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on review status or visibility), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 extremely concise with just three words, 'Update a review', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it meets the criteria for conciseness by avoiding unnecessary verbiage and maintaining a clear, if minimal, structure.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter ('updates'), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context such as behavioral details, usage guidelines, and clarification of parameter semantics beyond the schema. For a tool that modifies data, this minimal description fails to provide the completeness needed for safe and effective use by an AI 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'reviewId' and 'updates' clearly documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain what constitutes valid updates, provide examples, or clarify the structure of the 'updates' object. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

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 'Update a review' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'vtex_update_review'. It provides no additional specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, what the operation affects) or distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vtex_approve_review' or other update operations in the list. This minimal statement fails to clarify the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing review ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'vtex_approve_review' or other update operations. Without any context or usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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