rate_vibe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals constraints but not side effects: it does not say whether the rating/feedback is persisted, whether an existing rating is overwritten, whether authentication is required, or what happens after submission. 'Rate' and 'leave feedback' imply a write operation but leave behavioral consequences opaque.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action, the important conditional constraint, and the reference to saved vibes are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the key precondition and parameter usage adequately. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the agent can expect as a return value or confirm that the action is persisted. This is a noticeable but not critical gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by expressing a constraint the schema does not encode: at least one of rating or feedback must be provided. It also reinforces that vibe_name must reference an existing saved vibe, which clarifies intent beyond the raw field 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 states a specific action ('Rate a vibe and/or leave feedback') with a clear resource ('vibe') and references saved vibes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vibe_feedback (read) and save_vibe (creating a vibe). An agent can tell this is the write/feedback tool 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?

The description gives a clear operational rule: at least one of rating or feedback must be provided, and the agent should use a saved vibe name. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_vibe_feedback or how it relates to save_vibe/apply_saved_vibe; the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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