thincms_set_review_editor_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions internal-only and not shown publicly, but it does not disclose that the operation overwrites existing notes, nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., review not found). The description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and follows with specific use cases. Every part earns its place.

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 that the tool has no output schema and the operation is simple (set a string on a review), the description is largely sufficient. It explains the purpose, internal nature, and use cases. However, it could briefly mention that it returns confirmation or success status, but this is not critical.

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 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'editorNotes: Internal notes (pass empty string to clear)'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set free-text editor notes'), the resource ('a review'), and adds context that notes are internal-only. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like thincms_publish_review or thincms_unpublish_review by specifying it is for editor notes, not status changes.

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 concrete use cases ('tracking why something was unpublished or what to do about a flagged drift event'), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use cases are specific and relevant.

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