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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: manual corrections persist over automatic classification, and raw source plus attribution fields are left untouched. It omits the optimistic-concurrency failure mode, but the schema documents that on expectedUpdatedAt.

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?

Two tight sentences: the affirmative capability first, then the durability guarantee, then the exclusion with the redirect. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the mutation/concurrency mechanics live in the schema descriptions. What remains missing is only a note that expectedUpdatedAt must come from a fresh get, which matters for an agent attempting a correction, but the schema carries it adequately.

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 only 33%, with descriptions present for idempotencyKey and expectedUpdatedAt. The description compensates partially by naming title, summary, and type as the correctable fields and clarifying their relationship to auto-classification, but feedbackId and the enum values for type get no added meaning, so the gap is only half closed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Corrects Feedback') and enumerates the exact fields it touches: title, summary, type. It also clarifies scope by excluding raw source and Evidence/Problem attribution, which separates it from the link/unlink and status siblings, though it never names feedback_set_status or feedback_link_change directly.

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 a clear condition for use (manual corrections to the three fields) and an explicit when-not-to-use with a routed alternative ('use problem_link_evidence/problem_unlink_evidence for attribution'). It does not address status transitions, which are handled by a sibling, nor the stale-write retry workflow in the description itself.

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