append_feedback_context

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating mutation. The description adds context that the session must be open and that this is an append operation, which aligns with destructive behavior. No contradictions, but could mention error cases for closed sessions.

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 efficient sentences front-load the action and context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 append tool, the description is fairly complete. It implies the session must be open but does not explicitly state that precondition. No output schema exists, so no need to describe return values. Minor 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 description coverage is only 33% (only message has a description). The tool description provides overall context but does not explain sessionId or role in detail. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema for the message parameter but insufficiently compensates for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Append' and resource 'open feedback session', and distinguishes from siblings like capture_feedback and finalize_feedback_session by specifying it's a follow-up after thumbs up/down.

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 call: 'when the user types additional context after giving thumbs up/down.' It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and limits use to follow-up messages.

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