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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the meaningful burden and does add value: it discloses that feedback is stored per-agent and 'propagated as context to future optimizations' — a side effect that persists beyond the call. It doesn't cover failure modes or what happens when neither rating nor comment is supplied.

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, no waste: the action is front-loaded, then the persistence/propagation behavior, then the enum guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, storage behavior, and the key enum semantics. It omits edge-case guidance such as whether rating and comment may be combined or omitted, and does not mention the superadmin-only customerId parameter that the schema documents.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the intent behind each feedbackType value with use-case examples, which helps the agent pick the right enum. It adds little for the remaining parameters (agentId, comment, variantId, optimizationId, customerId).

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Add feedback ... on an optimization result') and scopes the target to optimization results, which separates it from the sibling add_insight_feedback. An agent can tell what it does and what it acts on without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the three feedbackType values, with concrete examples ('never remove the disclaimer' for constraint, 'focus on reducing hallucination' for direction). It does not explicitly rule out or route to the sibling add_insight_feedback, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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