post_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals several non-obvious behaviors: OAuth scope discovery, AI-agent-labelled output, separate section, and no impact on the human rating. This goes well beyond what the input schema provides.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and followed by necessary authentication and behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple 3-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description explains purpose, authentication, and the special output treatment. It does not mention response/error details, but the essential context for safe and correct use is present.

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 covers all three parameters (plate, rating, text) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 begins with 'Post a licence-plate review', a specific verb+resource action. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling read tools (lookup_plate, recent_plates) by focusing on the write/submission operation.

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 clearly states the authenticated-user requirement and OAuth 'write' scope, giving the context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling read tools make the write-vs-read distinction obvious.

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