Submit Feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether submission requires an authenticated user, whether feedback is delivered anywhere, whether it is rate-limited, or what happens on failure — notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is short enough that it could easily have afforded one more clause of usage or behavior guidance.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the surface but not the operational context an agent needs (auth, rate limits, effect). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every one of the six parameters is already documented with type, length, and format constraints. The description's paraphrase of title/message/category/email/deviceInfo adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (user feedback) plus the payload shape, which distinguishes it from siblings like horizon_create_log or horizon_create_crash_report. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus horizon_create_log, horizon_create_crash_report, or horizon_send_email, all of which are write/send style siblings. No prerequisites (e.g., must the userId be authenticated) are given.

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