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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the write operation, server-side authentication handling ('Do not send user_name, email, is_login, or app_id'), and the conditional behavior of omitting feedback, plus the expectation to keep asking until saved.

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 front-loaded with the trigger and API details, and the Args section reinforces the parameter semantics well. It is slightly redundant—the server-stores-saifs_ai behavior and omit-feedback instruction appear twice—but still structured and readable.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, parameter values, server behavior, and safety guidance. There is nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke this tool correctly that is missing.

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%, but the description fully defines 'reaction' (excellent|good|average|bad or matching emoji) and 'feedback' semantics, including when to omit it entirely. It also tells the agent what not to include, which the schema cannot express.

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, 'Save user feedback to the MultipleWords feedback API (POST /api/feedback)', with a clear resource and endpoint. Despite the generic name 'feedback', the description makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling generation/content tools.

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?

Explicitly scopes invocation: 'Call this only when a generation result has feedback_prompt.ready=true' and explains the server cadence (every 3 successful outputs, keeps asking until saved). This gives an agent a precise trigger and tells it not to call the tool at other times.

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