Capture Feedback

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the agent knows it's a mutating operation. The description adds useful context about how vague feedback is handled (logged and returned with a clarification prompt instead of memory promotion). However, the specific destructive impact or side effects are not disclosed, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds an important conditional behavior. Every word 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?

With 14 parameters, nested objects, enum constraints, and no output schema, the tool is complex. The description only addresses the minimal use case and gives no guidance on provenance (memorySource), failure-type classification, rubric scores, or return behavior. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 43%, leaving many parameters (e.g., tags, whatWorked, guardrails, rubricScores) without explanations. The tool description only clarifies the core signal/context pair (up/down and one-line why) but does not compensate for the large undocumented parameter set, making it difficult for the agent to correctly populate optional fields.

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 captures an up/down signal plus a one-line reason, and mentions the specific behavior for vague feedback (logged and returned with a clarification prompt). This specific verb+resource+behavior distinguishes it from sibling feedback tools like feedback_summary or open_feedback_session.

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 implies usage when you have up/down feedback to capture, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative feedback pathways (e.g., open_feedback_session or reflect_on_feedback). No exclusions or alternatives are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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