record_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the reward range [0,1], which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is append-only, idempotent, requires an existing arm, or has any side effects on the recommendation model. For a write operation, this is a significant 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and includes the essential constraint. Every word adds meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse. It defines the basic operation but leaves out the surrounding workflow, return behavior, and any consequences of calling it, which are needed for reliable invocation in context.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It conveys that arm_id refers to an arm and reward is a value in [0,1], covering both parameters at a basic level. However, it lacks details about how arm_id is obtained or what happens with out-of-range rewards.

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 action ('Record'), the object ('an observed reward'), and the target ('for an arm'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the contrast with 'recommend' and 'budget_status' is conceptually clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention that it should follow a 'recommend' call, nor does it explain the workflow context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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