update_feedback

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds that only value, weight, and metadata are changed, trace linkage is immutable, and it returns updated status and IDs. This provides useful context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on analytics).

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, front-loaded with the action and return, then constraints and alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of sibling alternatives, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, modifiable fields, immutability of trace linkage, and usage guidance. No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description summarizes which parameters are modifiable but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. The mention of return values is about output, not input 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 'Update an existing feedback record by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It details what fields are changed (value, weight, metadata) and distinguishes from the sibling tool create_feedback, which is for new records.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to update existing feedback) and when not (use create_feedback for a new record). It also clarifies that trace linkage is immutable, guiding parameter selection.

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