sap_give_feedback

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

The description provides no details beyond 'create on-chain feedback'. With no annotations, it fails to disclose whether feedback overwrites, appends, or requires prior setup. No mention of transaction effects or idempotency.

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 a single clear sentence. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to add value without becoming verbose.

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 large family of sap_* tools and 4 parameters with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how feedback ties into agent reputation or related fetch tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as expected score range or tag conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the work.

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 (create) and resource (on-chain feedback for an agent wallet). It distinguishes from generic sibling names like 'sap_give_feedback' vs 'sap_update_feedback' is implicit, but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'sap_update_feedback' or 'sap_revoke_feedback'. No prerequisites or context for when feedback should be given.

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