Submit a product review

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that the review becomes public, that a one-time token is required, and that explicit user confirmation is needed. This meaningfully enriches the mutation semantics already implied by readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three sentences convey purpose, usage context, behavioral impact, and required prerequisites without redundancy. The key operational constraint (one-time token and public visibility) is placed prominently, and every sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity of five parameters including nested objects, the description covers how to obtain the action, confirmation token, and optional form values, plus the public post-condition and user confirmation requirement. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable; the definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the bar for added value is met by the description's explanation of where the action comes from (product detail form), the token dependency, and the verbatim reuse of form values. It adds workflow context beyond the raw parameter schemas, though less new detail on the values array since the schema already describes it.

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 identifies the operation as submitting a product review, states the rating range and optional text, and specifies the form action source. It also contrasts with the read-only sibling get_product_reviews by emphasizing public publication, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit use condition: when the user wants to publish a review for a product they bought. It also explains the prerequisite dependency on prepare_mutation and the need for user confirmation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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