paydirt_add_feedback_form

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

The description discloses that the tool creates or reuses a normalized-title match and that retries update an existing matching form, which is consistent with the idempotentHint. It also reveals the mandatory edit/build/test actions and non-completion of remote creation, adding useful behavioral context. The destructiveHint is not contradicted, though the description could more explicitly warn about overwriting existing forms.

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 compact and information-dense, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the trigger condition and then packs necessary behavior, output, and workflow constraints into a small number of sentences. Every clause adds operational value.

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 number of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main decision points: when to use it, what it returns, required follow-up actions, and Slack deferral. It could be slightly more explicit about failure modes or exact output shape, but the output schema is expected to carry that detail.

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?

Every parameter is described with concrete semantics beyond its name, such as preserving placement text verbatim, explaining trigger enum values, defaulting initial_question, and instructing to discover app_id via setup/list_apps. The 'retry updates existing form' note for initial_question adds important idempotent behavior. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 identifies the target action: adding a named feedback form at a specific placement, with create-or-reuse behavior based on normalized titles. It distinguishes this from generic form creation by anchoring it to screens, buttons, lifecycle moments, and in-app actions, and the sibling list reinforces that separate form tools exist.

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?

It explicitly starts with 'Use this when...' and describes the triggering user intent, which is strong usage guidance. It also states that remote form creation alone is not completion and that Slack is deferred until after visual verification, giving practical workflow direction. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the trigger conditions are clear enough.

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