brand_feedback_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions updating status and adding a note, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications, reversibility), permissions required, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 long, front-loads the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values, success/failure indicators, and edge cases. The sibling context provides some implicit understanding, but explicit completion would benefit an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, restating the statuses and note purpose. It does not provide additional context like format constraints or relationships between parameters.

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 tool updates the status of a feedback item after review, specifying the three possible statuses (acknowledged, fixed, wontfix) and an optional triage note. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brand_feedback_review, which likely handles the review process itself.

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 implies use after review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like brand_feedback_review or brand_feedback. It lacks explicit criteria for when not to use it or when to choose a different sibling tool.

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