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

With no informative annotations, the description usefully discloses that this records feedback only and has no retry behavior. It could add detail about side effects or permissions, but it provides materially more transparency than the raw schema.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose, then provide the runId conditional and a no-retry warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema text.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter conditions, and behavioral boundaries. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by explaining when runId should be present or omitted, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Optional runId returned by run'.

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?

States a specific action ('Record what was missing, wrong, or incomplete') and a clear resource (feedback for Bowmark to build). The title and description together distinguish this from run and get_library by framing it as a feedback-only 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?

Gives explicit conditions: pass runId when reporting on a run, omit it when get_library did not cover the task, and do not use this to retry a run. This directly routes an agent among the sibling tools and states a when-not.

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