create_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it writes a NEW record linked by trace_id, takes effect immediately, and returns created IDs and status — useful for an agent deciding whether to retry or verify.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the write/return/immediacy details, then the alternative routing. Efficient and every clause adds information, though it is a single dense sentence that could be split for scannability.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and annotations cover safety. It supplies the essential extras (immediate effect, trace_id linkage, update_feedback alternative), leaving little an agent needs missing for 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 100%, so value, weight, metadata, and trace_id are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that trace_id links the record; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Create feedback') and the scope ('for a trace or request'), then immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling update_feedback. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use update_feedback when correcting an existing record,' which gives a clear when-to-use-this vs alternative rule. It doesn't state exclusions beyond that (e.g., prerequisites like valid trace_id existence), so it stops just short of a full 5.

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