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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the first call persists nothing and returns a preview plus confirmation_code, the write only lands at the agent's next refresh rather than immediately, and the user must explicitly confirm. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious mutation semantics an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and why, then the confirmation workflow, then the async timing caveat. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; only "Quote the user's words in detail" feels slightly padded against the schema's maxLength.

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?

Complete for a nine-parameter mutation whose return values are covered by an output schema (the preview) and whose safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gaps are field-level meanings rather than behavioral risks, and the critical persistence/confirmation semantics are fully spelled out.

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% across nine parameters, and the description only clarifies confirmation_code (the confirmation handshake), detail (quote the user's words in detail), and agent ownership. It says nothing about target/section/skill_slug, category, severity, expected_behavior, or idempotency_key, so much of the contract remains guesswork.

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 verb and resource ("File feedback about one of your own Dactic agents") with a concrete example of the kind of input expected, and scopes it to the caller's own agents, which separates it from siblings like get_feedback_status or compare_agent_versions.

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 an explicit two-phase procedure (call without confirmation_code, show preview, ask user, call again with the code) plus the restriction "Only for your own agents." It does not name an alternative tool for feedback about other agents or for checking submission status, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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