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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it reveals that the correction updates a SHARED pattern library, that patterns are anonymized, that trace content is never shared, and that correct/wrong verdicts are weighted accordingly. These are non-obvious side effects an agent must know 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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, when to call, side effects, and the sibling alternative. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

Coverage is strong for a simple feedback tool: purpose, timing, side effects, privacy, and routing are all present. The only omitted details are the response/acknowledgment format and error behavior, which are unlikely to affect correct 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the meaning of correct and note with context like 'did the fix work? what was wrong?', but it doesn't add materially new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a direct, specific verb and resource: tell Snapback whether a verdict was correct. It immediately distinguishes itself from request_pattern, so the agent can tell which tool to use without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is fully specified: call it AFTER acting on a verdict and seeing the outcome, allow only ONE rating per verdict, and explicitly route new-pattern requests to request_pattern. This gives the agent unambiguous selection and timing guidance.

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