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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world write. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure: the feedback is routed to the vendor behind the tool and to the Superpowers team, and it is private. It omits any note on rate limits or irreversibility of submission.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and destination, followed by the run_id conditional and the privacy note. Every clause carries distinct information with 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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly covers the destination and privacy of the submission, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It is complete enough for a submission tool, though it does not say whether anything is returned or acknowledged.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, and the enum for type is spelled out in the schema. The description only marginally extends this by explaining when to supply run_id and what missing_tool signifies, which keeps it at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 (send) and resource (private feedback) and enumerates the accepted kinds of feedback, including the missing_tool case. The phrase 'Not shown publicly' implicitly distinguishes it from review_tool, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 a concrete conditional for the optional run_id ('Pass run_id when it is about a run') and clarifies the missing_tool type, which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming review_tool as the public alternative, so the when-not is only implied by 'private'/'not shown publicly'.

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