submit_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a mandatory rating operation (implying it's a write/mutation tool), specifies timing constraints ('right after'), and mentions the return value ('Confirmation that the feedback was recorded'). However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, the third specifies returns, and the fourth reinforces mandatory usage. There is no wasted text.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects well, but lacks details on error scenarios or output specifics beyond a high-level confirmation. With no output schema, more detail on returns would be beneficial.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or edge cases for parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Rate whether a solution you applied actually worked') and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly linking it to 'find_solution' and 'unlock_solution'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Immediately after applying any solution from find_solution or unlock_solution — every applied solution must be rated'), when not to use alternatives (implied as mandatory for all applied solutions), and includes prerequisites ('right after you confirm the fix works or doesn't').

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