Send review feedback for a delegated coding task, prompting the local model to retry and rerun tests. Returns the updated diff and test output.
Send review feedback on a delegation; the local model tries again and the tests are re-run. Returns the updated diff and test output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| feedback | Yes | ||
| repo_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the model retries, tests are re-run, and the tool returns the updated diff and test output. This adds useful context about what happens when the tool is invoked, though it does not mention any side effects on existing delegation state.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and effect, then states the return value, making it quick for an agent to parse and act on.
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?
The description covers the main workflow and return value, but leaves repo_path undefined and does not explain when to use this tool versus accept/discard. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, these are meaningful gaps that could hinder 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely implies that 'id' refers to a delegation and 'feedback' is the review feedback. The 'repo_path' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent without enough information to populate all parameters correctly.
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 states a specific action ('Send review feedback on a delegation'), identifies the resource (delegation), and explains the effect (the local model tries again and tests are re-run). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept, discard, and status, which handle different outcomes.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when review feedback should be sent to trigger another attempt. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is distinct enough from accept/discard/status that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.