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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing execution type (synchronous), task support (forbidden), mutation modes (validate_only, preview_only, execute), partial failure policy (completed_items_not_rolled_back), and how idempotency is derived when idempotencyKey is omitted. It also clarifies the response format and seat requirements for multi-seat scenarios, which are valuable behavioral details not present in annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with key operational facts (classification, execution, mutation modes, partial failure), followed by response guidelines. Some content, such as 'Never display raw JSON' and 'Prefer concise, human language', is more about assistant behavior than tool semantics, but it doesn't bloat the description excessively. Overall, it's efficient and structured.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params, nested feedback object, no schema descriptions), the description covers many critical aspects: mutation modes, partial failure, idempotency, seat handling, and the nature of the returned JSON. However, it omits details about what the feedback payload should contain and how to use validate_only vs preview_only vs execute, which leaves some gaps for full 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain idempotencyKey's purpose (deterministic retry key) and seatId/seatName requirements for multi-seat writes, but it leaves the 'feedback' object structure undefined and doesn't clarify the roles of accountId, flightId, or creativeId. The description only partially bridges the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'provide' and resource 'performance feedback', and adds 'writes to Studio' to specify the destination. It is unique among siblings (no other 'feedback' tool), but it doesn't elaborate on what performance feedback consists of or what effect it has, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions operational constraints like seatId/seatName for multi-seat mutations and idempotency key behavior, but never states scenarios like 'use when you need to submit performance evaluations' or excludes other tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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