mess_provide_feedback

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, destructive, or idempotent, and it's open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that feedback is anonymous, mentions authentication requirements ('auth_key/session'), and details error conditions (409 for duplicate feedback, 424 for unavailed meal). This provides practical insights into how the tool behaves in edge cases, though it doesn't cover rate limits or response formats beyond status codes.

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 well-structured and concise, with key information front-loaded: purpose, prerequisites, error cases, parameters, and return value. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, such as stating requirements or outlining inputs. There's minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 complexity (a mutation with authentication and error handling), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, parameters, and return status, and annotations provide safety hints. The output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: JSON status 204'), so return values don't need explanation. However, it lacks details on authentication precedence (auth_key vs. session) or broader system context, leaving minor gaps for full agent understanding.

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 compensate. It lists parameters ('auth_key/session, meal_date, meal_type, rating (1-5), optional remarks') and adds semantic details like rating range and optionality. However, it doesn't fully explain parameter interactions (e.g., auth_key vs. session) or formats (e.g., date format YYYY-MM-DD is only in schema). The description adds some value but leaves gaps compared to the schema's detailed property 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Submit anonymous feedback for a meal.' It specifies the verb ('submit'), resource ('feedback'), and context ('for a meal'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'mess_get_meal_rating' or 'mess_get_feedback_window', which might be related to feedback retrieval rather than submission.

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 clear context for usage: 'User must have availed the meal.' This sets a prerequisite condition. It also mentions error cases (409 and 424), which indirectly guides when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or compare with sibling tools, such as when to use this versus other feedback-related tools in the list.

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