update_feedback

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by scoping the mutation ('changes only value, weight, and metadata') and declaring an immutability constraint ('leaves the trace linkage immutable'), which prevents an agent from attempting to send a trace field. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the additional field-scope and immutability disclosure is strong added value; failure behavior for bad IDs is the only notable gap.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, and every clause carries information. It is somewhat crammed with comma-spliced clauses rather than cleanly structured, costing a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so the mention of returning status and feedback IDs is a bonus rather than a necessity. Between the immutability note and the create/update split, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error-handling behavior is unaddressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names which fields are mutable (value, weight, metadata), but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Update an existing feedback record by ID') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_feedback. The agent can separate create vs. update without opening either 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 new records to create_feedback, which is a genuine alternative. It does not cover edge conditions such as what happens when updating a non-existent ID or whether updates are allowed after a log is archived, but the primary when/when-not split is present.

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