Update SAP Feedback

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

Annotations indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it updates 'on-chain feedback' for an agent wallet and advises on maintaining hash stability, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences precisely deliver purpose and usage guidance without extraneous details. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter considerations sufficiently. It lacks explicit return value explanation but is complete enough for a mutation tool with good supporting metadata.

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%, and the description adds value by emphasizing the need to keep hashes/attestation metadata stable, which subtly relates to the commentHash parameter. This goes beyond basic schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 'Update existing on-chain feedback for an agent wallet' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_revoke_feedback and sap_give_feedback, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides context ('SAP MCP context: Reputation and trust flow') and a precondition ('Use after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet and keep hashes/attestation metadata stable and auditable'). While not exhaustive, it gives clear guidance for when to use and what to ensure.

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