radar_record_feedback

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful side effect — that the record trains an 'active learning memory' and therefore influences future recommendations — but says nothing about idempotency, whether re-recording overwrites prior feedback, or what happens on an unknown release_id.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block where every entry adds information rather than restating the schema titles. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameters are well covered. What is missing for a no-annotation mutation tool is workflow context: preconditions, whether feedback can be revised, and the consequence of each decision value on downstream behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all three required parameters with a concrete release_id format example and two contrasting reason examples. It falls short of explaining how OBSERVED differs behaviorally from ACCEPTED/REJECTED.

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 ('Record') plus the resource ('developer's decision') and the effect ('train active learning memory'), and enumerates the decision vocabulary. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like radar_check_updates and radar_set_stack_profile, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is called after evaluating a release, but there is no statement of when to call it versus radar_prepare_context7_verification or radar_ingest_custom, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the release exist first).

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