update_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permission details beyond 'admin only', or return behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that concisely conveys the core purpose. It is not overly brief but efficiently communicates the key information.

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 tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description omits details on return behavior, error conditions, and parameter constraints. Without annotations, more context is needed for adequate completeness.

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. It mentions 'status' and 'admin notes', aligning with two parameters, but does not explain 'feedback_id' or provide constraints (e.g., valid status values). The added meaning is partial and insufficient.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'feedback item', and the specific fields that can be updated ('status / admin notes'). It also notes admin-only access, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_feedback' and 'feedback_stats'.

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 indicates admin-only usage, providing basic context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other update tools for different entities) or when not to use it.

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