write_review

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: content 'replaces what is there' and publish 'moves a draft to published.' These clarify overwriting and draft/publication behavior that annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise one-sentence summary followed by a tight argument list. Each line earns its place, and the most important behavior—writing or replacing—is front-loaded. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 four-parameter write operation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behaviors and parameter semantics. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as whether the film must already exist, but the combination of annotations, output schema, and description is sufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains all four parameters: id is a film id, content can be HTML or plain paragraphs and replaces existing text, rating is optional, and publish moves a draft to published. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Write or replace the review text on a film,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like set_rating, but the focus on 'review text' distinguishes it from rating-only operations, so it is clear even without an explicit sibling comparison.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as set_rating or create_film. It implies usage through the action verb, but doesn't state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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