rsi_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that a rejected action's comment is extracted as a prohibition, a persistent side effect. However, it omits other important behavior for a write operation: token lifetime, idempotency, what confirmation is returned, and how rating and action interact beyond a schema note.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the entire description is duplicated in Chinese, which adds length without new information for an agent that reads the English text. The two sentences are not wasteful individually, but the bilingual duplication weakens conciseness.

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?

For a feedback-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action taxonomy and the key rejected→prohibition consequence. It does not explain whether a success confirmation is returned, whether the feedback_token expires, or what permissions are needed, leaving gaps an agent would want closed.

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 100%, so all five parameters already have documented meaning, including the enum and the modified_content diff-ratio note. The description adds little beyond restating the action vocabulary and the rejected-comment rule, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Submit feedback on a recall') and enumerates the exact action vocabulary, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as rsi_recall, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer.

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 implied by the required feedback_token ('from rsi_recall'), but the description never says explicitly to call this after a recall or what alternatives exist. The rejected/comment rule is a behavioral detail rather than when-to-use guidance.

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