Create review

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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely load-bearing behavior beyond that: kind is immutable, a latex-enabled server rejects non-latex creates, and re-creating in another format produces a new id/url with comments and history lost.

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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded, and the rendering guidance is dense but useful. However, the kind-immutability caveat appears twice (once mid-paragraph, once in the closing sentence) and largely restates the schema's own warning, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight block.

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?

Despite seven parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers return values, both document modes, rendering capabilities, and irreversible-state caveats. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly and to warn its user before an irreversible choice.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight: it explains kind's semantics and irreversibility, clarifies that markdown holds raw LaTeX under kind=latex, and says project/session/source_path record draft provenance for the dashboard. title and template are left to the schema, and template is already richly documented there, so the gap is minor.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a review from markdown') and even names what it returns (the id and the review and feedback urls). The two modes (markdown vs latex) are clearly laid out, so an agent can distinguish this from list_reviews/get_review/update_source without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete decision rules: use kind="latex" when the body has \documentclass/\begin{document} or a .tex source_path, use ```mermaid for flows/decision trees/state machines, and attach images with attach_asset. It doesn't discuss when to create a new review versus updating an existing one via update_source, which is the one relevant alternative left unaddressed.

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