clelp_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates this is a write operation and requires authentication, but lacks details on whether ratings are editable, what happens on duplicates, or confirmation of success. More behavioral context is needed.

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?

Two sentences: first states core purpose, second provides authentication and community context. No superfluous words. Information is front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisite, and authentication, which is adequate for a simple rating tool. However, it omits what the response looks like (no output schema) and any potential limitations (e.g., cannot retract rating). Given the tool's simplicity, this is borderline acceptable but could be more complete.

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 describes all parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). The description adds value by connecting skill_id to clelp_search and encouraging specificity in commentary. This extra guidance enhances the schema.

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 tool's action: submitting a rating for a skill. It distinguishes from sibling clelp_search and clelp_get_skill by indicating this is a write operation. The inclusion of authentication context further clarifies usage.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use clelp_search first to find the skill, providing sequential guidance. It also notes the API key requirement. However, it does not specify cases where the tool should not be used (e.g., if the skill does not exist).

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