brand_feedback_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs an update (write operation), explains the three statuses, and mentions the optional note. It is adequate for a simple status update, though it does not discuss side effects or permissions.

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: the first defines the action and context, the second lists the statuses and note. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is self-contained. It covers the purpose, allowed statuses, and optional note, making it easy for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains the purpose of the note as 'optional triage note' and elaborates on the enum values (e.g., 'acknowledged' means 'seen, will address'). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 action: 'Update the status of a feedback item after review.' It specifies three distinct statuses and an optional note. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'brand_feedback' (likely creation/listing) and 'brand_feedback_review' (likely review comments).

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 includes 'after review' to indicate appropriate timing. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though context from sibling names implies usage boundaries.

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