paydirt_add_feedback_form

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses meaningful behavior: it 'creates or reuses a normalized-title match,' preserves placement verbatim, 'optionally resolves Slack,' and returns 'exact Swift plus mandatory edit/build/test actions.' The warning that remote creation alone is not completion adds essential context for agent workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the usage condition and packs in the key behavioral notes. Every clause adds value; no redundant wording. It is slightly long but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (7 parameters, 4 required, output schema present), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the trigger, the creation/reuse behavior, Slack resolution, the exact return value (Swift plus mandatory actions), and the completion criteria. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, and the description compensates with workflow guidance.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are fully documented. The tool description adds a little context (e.g., 'normalized-title match' hints at title matching logic, 'optionally resolves Slack' aligns with slack_channel) but does not provide significant additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates or reuses a normalized-title match' for a 'named feedback form at a screen, button, lifecycle moment, or in-app action.' It distinguishes from generic form tools by emphasizing the placement-specific, named-form behavior and the reusability, which separates it from simpler create/update siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks for a named feedback form at a screen, button, lifecycle moment, or in-app action.' It also provides a completion requirement ('Remote form creation alone is not completion') but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the 'when-not' aspect for a top score.

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